PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Margate Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till a quarter-past Eight of the clock this day.

Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords] (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No, 8) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ashton-under-Lyne Extension) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Ealing Extension) Bill [Lords],

Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords],

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

RESCUE WORK (GLASGOW).

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme for the reclamation of fallen women, suggested by the chief constable of Glasgow; and whether such scheme will be more fully inquired into?

Major ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have been asked to reply to this question. I have seen an extract from the chief constable's annual report for the year 1925, which I assume is the scheme referred to. The suggestions in the extract will be considered.

ACCIDENT, FORT WILLIAM (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).

Mr. MACLEAN: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that John Welsh, senior, valve-shaft camp, and John Welsh, junior, intake ii. camp at Balfour and Beattie's Contract, at Fort William, were both injured at work, one suffering from head injuries and the other suffering from a fracture of leg at ankle; that both these men were under treatment at the company's hospital at Fersit camp and were both ordered to leave the hospital on 5th July: that they were again ordered to leave on the following morning; that the company having refused the request of their panel doctor to accommodate the men he, the panel doctor, sent them to the Belford hospital, Fort William, that night; that these injured men were refused admittance to the hospital and had to lie out all night: and that all the, men on the contract
have deductions taken from their wages for this hospital; and whether he can state upon whose orders they were ejected from the Fersit camp hospital, and who gave the instructions that they were to be refused admittance to the Belford hospital, Fort William?

Major ELLIOT: As the answer is necessarily long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
There seems to be some confusion concerning these cases, John Welsh, aged 26, was injured as long ago as 14th April, remained for four weeks in bed at Fersit Camp Hospital and for two weeks on crutches. On 7th July, after being for 12 weeks under treatment he was seen by the compensation officer, who stated he was fit for light duty. He did not accept the position, and after a further six days' accommodation at Base Camp was sent by his panel doctor to the Belford Hospital, where, after examination by the medical superintendent, he was informed that the case was not one for hospital treatment and was accordingly not admitted.
The medical superintendent's report is that the original injury was not a fracture but a severe sprain, and that recovery would be assisted by light exercise.
The other case, of John Welsh, is that of a man who received a head injury on 31st May. There was no evidence of fracture, but simply of scalp injury. He was removed on 7th July to Base Camp as not being further in need of hospital treatment. He remained at Base Camp till 13th July without being asked to do any duty. He left to see his panel doctor, who in this case also sent him to the Belford Hospital. After examination by the superintendent he was not admitted, as not being in need of hospital treatment.
I understand that contribution to the Belford Hospital is on a voluntary basis and that some men pay and some do not, With regard to the last two parts of the question, I have not yet specifically ascertained on whose instructions these men were dismissed from Fersit Hospital. The refusal of admission to Belford
Hospital was given as part of his duty by the medical superintendent of the hospital.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC.

CROSS ROADS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 3.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the great number of accidents to motorists at cross roads, he will, for the purpose of reducing such accidents, consider introducing and enforcing a Regulation that at cross roads the driver of a motor car should be obliged to give way to a vehicle approaching from another road on his right or off-side?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I have been asked to reply. I have no power to make such a Regulation, neither am I at present convinced of the advantages claimed for it.

Sir F. HALL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may not have power to make such Regulations, but my question is to the Home Secretary, and I thought that he would have power to deal with these matters. Has the Home Secretary any such powers?

The SECRETARY of STATE far the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I will consult the Minister of Transport, to see where the powers lie.

AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION AND POLICE.

Captain BRASS: 4.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent unsuccessful prosecution by the police of an Automobile Association scout who had warned motorists to drive carefully over a certain stretch of the Great West Road: and whether. in view of the large number of accidents which have taken place on this road, he will consider a more friendly co-operation between the Metropolitan Police and the Automobile Association in the future, with the object of preventing as far as possible dangerous driving on this road instead of setting traps to prosecute motorists after the alleged offence has been committed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has been called to this case, and I understand that it was stated in Court
on behalf of the Automobile Association that the action of their scout was contrary to instructions. I am happy to say that the relations between the Association and the Metropolitan Police are, on both sides, those of mutual admiration and respect, and the Commissioner will always welcome their co-operation in furthering the safety of the general public.

Captain BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question in which I asked for a more friendly co-operation with the object of preventing dangerous driving on the road, instead of setting traps after the offence has been committed? I want to know if it is the policy of the police to prevent dangerous driving, or whether they allow dangerous driving so as to catch people after they have committed the offence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The duty of the police is to carry out the law in the first place, and, in the second place, to do everything they possibly can to secure the safety of the pubic. As I have already said in my reply, the Commissioner will welcome the co-operation of the Automobile Association or of my hon. and gallant Friend in furthering the safety of the general public.

Mr. HAYES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any scheme, so far as the Automobile Association scouts are concerned, to assist the police in controlling the traffic, and does he appreciate the difficulty and undesirability of any dual control?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite agree, but I have no such plan under consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general public have a high opinion of the way the police carry out their duties in this respect, and is he aware that they resent the suggestion that they encourage crime?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very much indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether there is any co-operation, and, if so, to what extent, between the police and officials of the
Automobile Association in giving assistance to motorists travelling over the roads within their jurisdiction?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Co-operation exists between the Metropolitan Police and the officials of the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club. The headquarters of the two associations are consulted from time to time, with advantage, on traffic matters, especially with regard to routeing and parking of vehicles off the roads. On the roads the police fully appreciate the assistance which the patrols of the two associations are able to give in traffic control.

Mr. HAYES: Were the police consulted as to the signs that should be given as warnings to motorists of the presence or traps.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That was obviously not a matter on which the police would be likely to he consulted?

GREAT WEST ROAD (DANGEROUS DRIVING).

Captain BRASS: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that out of the 232 persons summoned by the Metropolitan police for driving dangerously on the Great West Road only 11 were convicted; and whether, in view of this, he will give instructions to this Department that accusations of so serious a kind should not be made in the future based on the evidence of speed alone, and that before a summons is issued accusing a driver of dangerous driving all the circumstances of the case should he taken into account?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The persons in question were charged not with driving dangerously but with driving at a dangerous speed and alternatively in accordance with the usual practice with exceeding the speed limit. The fact that in a majority of the cases the Court decided to convict on the latter charge only does not seem to me to call for any action on my part.

Captain BRASS: Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair to charge people with driving dangerously, which is the same thing as driving at a speed dangerous to the public, when only 11 out of 232 persons were convicted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the police are of opinion that they were driving at a dangerous speed, I think it would be their duty to charge them; but if the Bench concludes that they were not, then I cannot interfere with the decision of the Bench.

Captain BRASS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this prosecution should be brought forward by the police on the evidence of speed alone?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The police might have a discretion as to the actual summons they issue against people breaking the law. My hon. and gallant Friend does not dispute the fact that in these cases in which prosecutions were undertaken a large majority of them were actually breaking the law. The police have been told on my instructions, that they must do everything they secure the safety of the public.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the time has passed when there should be any speed limit at all, but on the other hand those found guilty of driving to the danger of the public should be severely dealt with?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. and gallant Member has better put that question down.

PARLIAMENT SQUARE (REFUGES).

Mr. HANNON: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any representations in regard to placing a refuge in the road between St. Margaret's Church and Parliament Square; whether this particular position has been considered by the London Traffic Committee since 18th February, when attention was called to the matter; and what is the number of accidents at that point reported by the police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A suggestion to this effect was recently made by a private person. The question has not, I understand, been considered by the Traffic Committee since the date mentioned, but in view of the alterations to the kerb line at the south-east corner of the square which are now in hand, the question whether one or more small refuges can be erected with advantage will be taken up. The number of accidents reported since the Regulations came into force are as follow:
At the south-east corner 21, including slight personal injury to three pedestrians.
At the south-west corner 12, including slight personal injury to one pedestrian.
Between these two points 16, including a fatal accident to a cyclist and slight personal injury to two pedestrians.

Mr. HANNON: Would the Home Secretary accelerate as much as he can the consideration of this question by the Committee to which it has been referred, in order to have the safety of the public provided for at this spot?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will do all I can in that direction.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: In conjunction with the Ministry of Transport, will the right hon. Gentleman frame some Regulations to prevent motorists in Parliament Square from changing their line of traffic, and thereby causing very great danger to pedestrians endeavouring to get over the road.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think if the Minister of Transport in conjunction with myself decide upon some small safety stand, we may get over the difficulty, but the whole matter is being very carefully considered both by the Ministry of Transport and the Committee.

HENDON BROADWAY.

Mr. AMMON: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a complaint has been lodged with the Hendon Urban District Council by the victim of an accident on 8th July at Hendon Broadway, owing to the high speed of motor traffic through that thoroughfare, and that a child was fatally injured on this same road on Thursday, 15th July: and will he take steps to see that a stricter supervision is kept in order to limit the speed of motor traffic?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was not aware of the complaint referred to. The only accident known to the police to have occurred in Hendon Broadway on the 8th July was a collision between a motor car and a pedal cycle, which resulted in slight damage but no personal injury. On the 15th July a girl of eight was run over by a heavy motor lorry at the
junction of Edgware Road and Station Road,, and died shortly after from injuries received. At the inquest a verdict of accidental death was returned, and there was no evidence to warrant police proceedings. Special attention is, however, being devoted to the traffic at Hendon Broadway.

Mr. AMMON: Does the right hon. Baronet remember that, on the 28th June last, I called his attention to the dangerous condition of this road, and, as these accidents have happened since then, will he now see that something is done?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid the hon. Member was a true prophet. As I have said, the police are paying special attention to the traffic at this point.

Mr. MACLEAN: What steps are being taken to prevent these prophecies from coming true?

Colonel DAY: Will the Home Secretary consider placing an officer on point duty there?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must realise that London is very large, and I cannot supply enough police to put point duty men everywhere. We must have regard to the interests of the whole of London. Special attention is, however, being devoted to this particular place.

OMNIBIJSES (Excess PASSENGERS).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 10.
asked the Home Secretary what actual instructions have been issued by the police to omnibus proprietors with respect to the carrying of an excessive number of passengers; and whether he proposes to publish them for general information?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the instructions. Full particulars of the relaxations allowed were published in the Press, and were also stated by me, in reply to a question in the House on the 19th November last.

Sir J. REMNANT: Do these instructions refer to Sundays and Bank Holidays?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will send my hon. Friend also a copy of the instructions, if I may, so that he will he able to see for himself.

POLICE (WAR BONUS).

Sir J. REMNANT: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether the War bonus in the case of the police, as has been allowed by a recent decision in the House of Lords in the case of Poor Law officers, can now be reckoned as part of the annual pay and pensionable?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I am advised that the decision has no application to the police, but as the contrary view has been suggested. I am consulting the Law Officers of the Crown.

Sir J. REMNANT: Has the Home Secretary read the case against the South-wark Poor Law Guardians in which the Lord Chancellor drew attention to the Importance of that case because it might affect in a very important way the pensions of employés under other statutes; and whether, in considering this question, he will take into account the undoubted intention that the bonuses were granted to bring the purchasing power of the original wage up to present day requirements?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is rather a different question. I was advised that this did not apply to the police, but my hon. and gallant Friend suggests that it does. It is an arguable point, and I am submitting it to the judgment of the Law Officers of the Crown, asking their views upon it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

FEEDING SCHOOL CHILDREN, WEDNESBURY.

Mr. SHORT: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Wednesbury Education Committee is not administering the Feeding of Necessitous School Children Act, although the Wednesbury Trades Council has requested them to do so; and will he take steps to secure the application of the Act?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have no information as to the position
in Wednesbury, except that the authority have not decided to exercise their powers to provide meals. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member again to the reply given by me on 24th June last to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. SHORT: Will the Noble Lord make some inquiries as to the position in Wednesbury, and the need, if the need exists, for the application of this Act; and, if he finds the requisite evidence, will he use his influence to secure its adoption?

Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir; I cannot use my influence to do something which the Statute places not upon me, but upon the local authority.

TEACHERS (REDUCTION).

Miss LAWRENCE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Education in how many cases during the past six months he has requested local authorities substantially to reduce their staffs of teachers; and whether he will give the names of these authorities?

Lord E. PERCY: Eighty-four authorities in England and Wales were informed that the Board were not satisfied, on the information before them, that the salary expenditure contemplated in the revised forecasts for this year might not be reduced without injury to the efficiency of the education provided. In 22 instances the Board have received explanations or modified proposal, which they could accept. The remaining cases are still under discussion. I do not think that any useful purpose would he served by my giving the names of the authorities concerned.

EQUIVALENT QUALIFICATIONS.

Miss LAWRENCE: 18 and 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will indicate the standard and type of qualification he is prepared to approve (under Schedule I (2) (c), Grant Regulations 8) as equivalent to those ordinarily approved for uncertificated teachers; and in what respect such
qualifications will differ from those demanded from supplementary teachers;
(2) whether he will explain Schedule I, Section 1 (e), of Grant Regulations No. 8, 1928, by indicating the standard and type of qualifications which he is prepared to recognise as substantially equivalent to the qualifications now recognised as entitling the teacher to a certificate; and whether, before he approves of the modification of the standard of qualification on account of the available supply of certified teachers being insufficient, he will take into account how far that available supply has been depleted by the exclusion of married women teachers?

Lord E. PERCY: The provisions referred to are intended to meet the case of applications for recognition from teachers trained in the Dominions and Colonies or foreign countries, and other special cases, and it is hardly practicable to indicate beforehand what would be regarded as equivalent qualifications in any particular case. I may say, however, that these provisions represent no change from those previously in force. The existence of married women teachers will be taken into account in considering the available supply.

TRAINING COURSE (TEACHERS).

Major GLYN: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the adverse effect on the supply of rural pupil teachers which will result from the withdrawal of the preliminary examination for the certificate as foreshadowed in Circular 1372; and whether, in view of the necessity of maintaining an adequate supply of teachers suitably prepared for giving instruction in rural schools, he will consider the possibility of substituting some alternative examination leading up to a scheme of training specially adapted to the needs of teachers interested in country life and alive to its problems?

Lord PERCY: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for affording me an opportunity of removing the apprehensions to which he alludes. Some county authorities have already made representations to me on this subject, and I have given assurances that, pending a more permanent arrangement, the
Board will take steps to ensure that there will be an examination appropriate for these young intending teachers up to December of 1930.
The wider issue raised in the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is one of the most important questions which the Board and local authorities have to consider at the present time. I think it is generally agreed that our present arrangements do not sufficiently ensure the maim tenance of a supply of teachers interested in country life and pursuits, and capable of giving that type of advanced and practical instruction most suitable to the needs of the country districts. In consultation with the County Councils Association, the Board are, therefore, considering what steps can be taken to arrange courses of training alternative to those normally adopted which, while retaining an adequate level of general education, will provide special facilities for acquiring knowledge in horticulture and agriculture and for stimulating interest in rural environment.

HORNSEY AUTHORITY (EXPENDITURE)

Mr. TREVELYAN: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the Hornsey education authority have been urged by the Board to make reductions in their teaching staff which would involve the dismissal of 67 of their teachers out of 210, he will give the terms of the Board's letter which states the staffing standard which they propose to enforce?

Lord E. PERCY: I am circulating a copy of the letter referred to in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As the right hon. Member will see, I have not required the Authority to make any specific reduction in their teaching staff. The rate of expenditure which I have indicated to them for their consideration is, approximately, the rate of expenditure in London for the current year.

Mr. COVE: Is it not a fact that the rate of expenditure which is indicated to the Hornsey local authority will demand a considerable reduction of teachers before it can be realised, and further, has not the Noble Lord indicated to the authority a definite standard as regards the number of pupils there may be in a class?

Lord E. PERCY: With regard to the last point, that is not correct. If the hon. Member will look at the letter he will see that there is nothing whatever about the number of pupils to a class. As regards the question whether the figure indicated would involve a reduction in the number of teachers, I have yet to be convinced of that fact. I believe I am seeing a deputation from the local authority in a few days and I will discuss that question with them. The rate of expenditure I have indicated is not one applying particularly or wholly to teachers' salaries, but covers other expenditure and costs of administration as well.

Mr. COVE: Is it not a fact that the authority, after reading the letter from the Department, and after interviews with the Board of Education, stated it in public quite definitely that the Board's demand can only be met by a considerable reduction in the number of teachers?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the question on the paper.

Following is the letter referred to:

2nd July, 1926.

1. Hornsey.

2. Local Education Authority Expenditure.

J. 194 E/8.

Sir,

With reference to Mr. Allen's letter of 9th June, and to the subsequent semiofficial discussions which have taken place in regard to the authority's revised forecast of expenditure for the year 1926–27, I am directed to state that the Board have given careful consideration to the representations which the authority have made to them; but they remain of the opinion that the expenditure proposed by the authority is in excess of that which the Board can properly recognise for grant. On the bases of the figures of average attendance at the schools in the authority's area for the year 1925–26, the cost per unit of average attendance for elementary education, under the headings Teachers' Salaries, Administration, and other Expenditure, appears to amount to about 315s. 2d. This figure is very greatly in excess of the general standard of expenditure on corresponding services in other areas where the provision for elementary education is admittedly efficient and progressive, and the Board do not feel that they would be justified in recognising for grant expenditure by the authority for the current year, under these three headings, at a higher rate than approximately 285s. per unit of average attendance.

The Board do not name this figure as a definite standard of expenditure. As a
matter of fact, this rate of expenditure is itself substantially in excess of that incurred on corresponding services in other areas. They put it forward for the authority's consideration as in all the circumstances a reasonable figure for the current year, on the understanding that the authority are now entering upon a serious consideration of the whole organisation of their educational services, with a view to making such reductions in expenditure, during the next two or three years, as have been found in other areas to be compatible with educational efficiency.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sd.) M. G. HOLMES.

To the

Local Education Authority.

PROBATION OFFICERS.

Mr. SHEPHERD: asked the Home Secretary which areas have appointed probation officers under the Probation Rules, 1926; how many of these are full-time, part-time, or voluntary, respectively; and to what extent voluntary societies have co-operated under the above Rules?

Sir W. J0YNSON-HICKS: The Probation Rules, 1926, only came into force on the 1st July, and I am not as yet in a position to make any comprehensive statement as to what is being done under their provisions. I hope to be in possession of full returns relating to the matters covered by the question by the end of the year, and will then, no doubt, be able to furnish the hon. Member with the information he requires.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the right hon. Baronet satisfied with the general principle of these appointments?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the House knows, I had the privilege of introducing the Bill last year, and since then the number of appointments has enormously increased, as I believed it would.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

SIGNOR ITALO PARODI.

Viscount SANDON: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the cause of the treatment of Signor Italo Parodi by the officials at Newhaven in causing him twice to be placed in a detention
room and to re-cross to France; and whether he has taken any action in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When Signor Parodi first arrived at Newhaven on 8th July, he intimated that he wished to stay for about a fortnight visiting friends, and that his car would follow on a later boat. As his total visible means consisted of a single ticket to London, a few toilet necessaries and about 25s. in cash, which was obviously insufficient for even a short stay, he was refused leave to land. When he again arrived, on 12th July. he was still without funds, but had the car with him. He was met by friends who undertook that he would be supplied with money, and on receipt of assurances which had meanwhile been sent by the Italian Consul-General, he was allowed to land. I see no reason for any action on my part in the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it really the case that the test of a visitor's eligibility is the amount of money he can show in his pockets?

Sir F. HALL: Is it not necessary, in order to keep out some undesirable aliens, that we should see before they land that they have sufficient money

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Aliens Order, which Parliament has called upon me to administer, definitely provides that leave to land shall not be given to an alien unless he is in a position to support himself and his dependants.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard the sentence inflicted en the Tory candidate at Wallsend?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: When the right hon. Baronet appeals to the Aliens Order, is he not aware that he is merely appealing to an Order which he himself made?

Sir F. HALL: And a very good law too!

PHILLIP LEBOVITCH.

Sir F. HALL: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that, following upon a number of previous convictions for crime, Philip Lewis, a Russian, was sentenced recently at Manchester Assizes to three years' penal servitude for housebreaking; whether he is aware that on two occasions this alien has been recommended for de-
portation; and if he will state why these recommendations have not been given effect to?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the case of Phillip Lebovitch, who has been convicted and recommended for deportation as stated. He is believed to have been born in Petrograd, and came to this country with his parents at the age of three. In the absence, however, of any evidence of his nationality, it has proved impossible to secure his recognition as a Soviet citizen, and he cannot, therefore, be returned to Russia.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask how long this country is going to be a place of refuge for these people who would not be allowed in their own country–the débris of Continental cities?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend can hardly regard a baby of three as débris. That was the age at which he came over, and, if he has become so bad as he has, one must consider, perhaps, that he became bad while lie was here.

Sir F. HALL: Have not the learned Judges given consideration to these cases, and is it not true that this is the third time he has been ordered for deportation? Does not my right hon. Friend think that the learned Judges would give due consideration to all the facts of the case? We do not want these people here.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am inclined to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, but I cannot turn a man out of this country unless he is a citizen of some other country which is prepared to take him. It may be very difficult to establish where anybody was born many years ago, and I cannot establish with certainty that this man was born in Petrograd.

TRADE UNION RETURNS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the annual Returns for the year ended 31st December, 1925, made by the trade unions, will be issued by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies: and whether he is at present able to give the Returns made by any of the trade unions for 1925?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. With regard to the first part of the question, a summary of the annual Returns, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, will be published about December next. Fuller particulars will be given in Part 4 of the Chief Registrar's Annual Report, which will be issued later. As regards the second part, the Returns which have been made can be inspected at the Registry of Friendly Societies, Central Office, at 17, North Audley Stret, W.1.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Are members of the public entitled by law to receive copies of the accounts of each of the trade unions on payment of one shilling?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say off-hand.

Colonel WOODCOCK: If I address a question to the right hon. Gentleman, will he look into it?

Mr. McNEILL: Certainly.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that trade unions are not entitled to send their annual return for 1925 until May?

Mr, McNEILL: I believe that is so

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Colonel DAY: 22.
asked the Minister of Health if he is able to make any statement upon the proposals dealing with slum areas?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Colonel DAY: When is it proposed to carry out the slum clearance in Tabard Street, which was supposed to be commenced in 1912?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate at the earliest possible moment in what way one clears slums as long as there is a Rent Restrictions Bill?

CONSTRUCTION (ALTEENATIVE METHODS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 24.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses erected by alternative methods of construction during the last 12 months as compared with those erected by these methods during the preceding year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Statistics are not available showing the total number of houses of alternative methods of construction which were completed during the periods in question. Estimates based on returns obtained from local authorities in connection with the State-assisted schemes under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 show that some 15,630 houses have been completed under these Acts by special methods of construction of which some 12,140 were completed during he 12 months ended 1st July last. I egret that similar figures for the previous 12 months are not available.

SUBSIDY HOUSES.

Major GLYN: 25.
asked the Minister of Health what is the total number of subsidy houses to date built by local authorities and private enterprise during the 12 months ending 30th June; how many are under construction; what is the average price of the parlour and non-parlour types, respectively; and how does that calculation compare with prices in 1925, 1924 and 1920?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 52,308 subsidy houses were completed by local authorities and 65,737 by private enterprise during the 12 months ended 30th June last. The numbers under construction on 1st July were 51,116 and 41,299 respectively. The average prices of parlour type houses in contracts let by local authorities during the month of June, 1926 (excluding the cost of land and development), was £501, and of non-parlour type £435. The corresponding prices for the month of June in each of the years 1925, 1924 and 1920 were £485 and £442; £462 and £421; £972 and £860. I have no information as to the average prices of houses erected by private enterprise.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Was the construction during the last three months equal to the average for the three previous quarters?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it was in excess of it.

PURCHASE.

Major GLYN: 26.
asked the Minister of Health what is the total number of houses that have been purchased through the medium of the various Housing Acts since 1919, either through building societies, local authorities, or direct from builders, all such houses being of the type to earn the subsidy; what is the estimated total value of capital so invested; and whether the rate at which houses for the working classes are being so acquired is greater now than in the years before the War.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that it is not practicable to give the number of houses purchased since the War with assistance under the Housing Acts or to frame any reliable estimate of the capital so invested. I have no doubt, however, that the number of owner occupiers of working class houses has increased very largely. For example, to take only two sources of supply, loans sanctioned since the Act of 1923 up to the end of July for advances on mortgage by local authorities amounted to over £29,000,000, as compared with £898,000 for the period 1899 to the end of July, 1923, while the amount advanced on mortgage by building societies during the year 1924 (the latest date for which complete figures are available) was £40,290,137, as compared with an average annual advance of about £9,000,000 during the five years before the War.

TENEMENT DWELLINGS.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the attitude of his Department towards the policy of erecting blocks of tenement dwellings to provide alternative accommodation for those people now crowded into insanitary areas; and whether, if his Department approves the policy, he proposes to recommend its consideration to the different local authorities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Where proposals for clearing insanitary property are approved, it is the practice of my Department to require that provision shall be made for rehousing the persons to be displaced. The precise form of the provision will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. While I think the working classes can generally be housed better in cottages than in blocks of tenements, there are certainly cases in
which it is necessary to adopt the latter form of accommodation, and in such cases the erection of tenements would be sanctioned.

NURSING HOMES.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government proposes to adopt the Report of the Select Committee on Nursing Homes; and whether he is aware of the urgency of action which is needed in this respect to meet the condition of less well off middle-class families?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There has not yet been time for the Government to consider the Report, and I am accordingly unable to make any statement on the first part of the question. The second part of the question does not appear to arise out of the Report, and I can only say that there are in any case no funds at my disposal enabling me to meet what I understand to be the object of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

CONCESSIONS (COST).

Viscount SANDON: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of concessions made in the Finance Bill, as finally passed, since the introduction of the Budget?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The cost is estimated at about £36,000 this year and £58,000 in a full year.

Captain BENN: Does that include the reduction in Income Tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

BETTING DUTY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a bet made on a racecourse during a race meeting between a backer and a bookmaker both attending that particular race meeting but on a horse, or horses, running at another race meeting in another part of the country on the same day will be taxed at the higher or lower scale?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The bet in question would be taxed at 2 per cent.

Colonel DAY: What will happen with flat racing in France?

BROADCASTING.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that wireless reception constitutes a national recreation and education subscribed to by the people, there will be any guarantee that the funds of the British Broadcasting Company will be reserved exclusively for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of the service and the broadcasting movement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can add nothing to the statement made on the 14th July by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on the subject of broadcasting in the Debate on the Post Office Estimates. The arrangements to be made for regulating the finance of the new corporation are still under consideration.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May we take it there will be no raids on this surplus?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot give any assurance in regard to that.

PTIIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS (COST OF PRINTING).

Mr. WELLS: 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the average cost of printing a private Member's Bill as introduced and ordered to be printed by the House; can he state what is approximately the cost per page in the case of Bills consisting of a number of pages; and whether there is any sale of such Bills to the public as a reduction of the charge to public funds?

Mr. McNEILL: The average cost of printing a private Member's Bill, as introduced and ordered to be printed by the House, is £8; the approximate cost per page in the case of Bills consisting of a number of pages is £1. The total cost of printing private Members' Bills for the Session 1924–25 was about £850, and the receipts from sales for the same period were about £290.

Mr. WELLS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think this cost always justify?

Mr. McNEILL: That is a question of opinion.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: How many of these Bills were turned into Acts?

MANUFACTURED GOODS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the

A RETURN of the Registered Value of the Imports into Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland of (a) manufactured goods on which new customs duties were imposed by the 
legislation of 1925, and the Exports of goods similarly classified, and (b) the Imports 
and Exports of all other manufactured goods, during each of the periods of six months 
(January–June) 1926 and 1925.


Group.
January–June, 1926.
January–June, 1925.


Imports.
Exports.
Imports.
Exports.



£
£
£
£


Cinematograph Films
516,715
223,108
930,003
286,410


Clocks and watches and parts thereof
545,411
140,261
2,521,158
246,888


Motor Cars, etc., and parts and accessories thereof.
3,444,413
6,072,393
7,606,954
6,499,334


Musical instruments and parts and accessories thereof.
315,015
1,069,759
1,519,842
1,023,551


Silk and silk manufactures—






Silk yarn, wholly or partly of silk
8,682,827
1,312,768
15,989,129
2,151,431


Silk manufactures (except apparel, lace and embroidery) viz.:—Tissues wholly or 
partly of silk.


Artificial Silk manufactures—


Artificial silk yarn, wholly or partly of artificial silk.
2,054,020
3,501,611
4,850,973
2,728,256


Artificial silk manufactures (except apparel, lace and embroidery), via.:—


Tissues wholly or partly of artificial silk.


Woollen and worsted piece goods mixed with artificial silk.
Not available
134,592*
Not available
Not available


Made-up articles, containing silk or artificial silk.
2,841,168
235,747†
1,675,345†
586,007†


Lace and embroidery
299,501
1,030,660
1,022,218
1,973,189


Cutlery
146,186
424,685
221,844
468,498


Gas Mantles
30,008
15,242
120,971
18,238


Impregnated hose or stockings for use in the manufacture of mantles for incandescent 
lighting.
8
14
Not available
Not available


Gloves of leather or of fur, and cotton fabric gloves and material for such gloves.
649,832
106,117
1,900,191
208,039


Total
19,525,134
14,266,957
38,358,628
16,189,841


All other manufactured goods (Class III—wholly or mainly manufactured).
129,852,043
273,224,145
136,149,907
313,069,139


* Excluding exports of imported goods so described.


† Excluding apparel, etc., so described. Separate particulars for such goods containing silk and artificial silk not available.

total of the imports and exports of the following groups of manufactured goods during the first six months of 1925 and 1926, respectively, those manufactured goods on which new Customs duties were imposed by the legislation of 1925, and all other manufactured goods?

Mr. McNEILL: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information promised:

It should be noted:

(1) The exports in general include re-exports;
(2) To obtain comparability the figures for motor cars, etc., include non-dutiable cars and parts, as separate figures for the latter are not available for 1925;
(3) Imports of goods now dutiable were in most cases increased by forestalments in the first half of 1925, which may still have been having some effect in diminishing imports in the first half of 1926;
(4) Exports of silk and lace in 1926 are actually larger than the figures shown, as since the duties were imposed, a part of the re-export trade has been diverted into "transhipment under bond" traffic, detailed particulars of which are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTH: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury has in recent years made grants to any land drainage bodies for specific schemes or to assist them in their current expenditures; which these bodies were; and how much were the grants?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
Grants were made during the four years 1921–22 to 1924–25 to a large number of commissioners of sewers, drainage boards and other statutory drainage authorities towards the cost of approved schemes. These grants were made primarily with the object of alleviating unemployment in rural areas during the winter months.

The total net cost to the State of these schemes was as follows:

£


1921–22
…
…
…
…
169,507


1922–23
…
…
…
…
185,839


1923–24
…
…
…
…
134,217


1924–25
…
…
…
…
114,557

The figure for 1924–25 is approximate, certain accounts having not yet been finally settled.

The number of separate authorities who participated in these grants was 177, and I therefore hesitate to specify them in detail, but if my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind and will communicate with me, I will endeavour to give him the desired information.

Further moneys have been set aside for the purpose of assisting these bodies to carry out, during the five years commencing on the 1st April, 1926, more comprehensive drainage schemes designed to confer a wide benefit on agricultural land. Thirteen schemes for 11 authorities have already been approved by the Ministry, the amount of the contributions which the Ministry may be called upon to make being estimated at £23,000 up to the present date.

TITHE REDEMPTION (KNIGHT0N).

Captain D'ARCY HALL: 39 and 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) if he is aware that the expenses in connection with tithe redemption are assessed under different scales; that in a recent case at Knighton scale C was employed, entailing a charge of £216, whereas at at Wotton-under-Edge, in a similar case, scale A was employed! and, seeing that if scale A had been employed in the former case the amount would have only been £86, will he state how the Department reaches a decision to operate under a particular scale; and whether the Treasury participates in these fees or whether these cover the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture only;
(2) Whether, with regard to the action brought by his Department to recover an unpaid balance of tithe redemption money and expenses at Knighton, he is aware that his Department in this case redeemed the tithe for a sum of £358 while the fees and expenses connected therewith were £216; and, in view of the great disparity of these amounts, will he state how such fees and expenses were assessed?

Mr. GUINNESS: The facts to which my hon. and gallant Friend calls attention are substantially correct, and I recognise that there are certain disparities in the existing method of assessing the expenses in cases of compulsory tithe redemption. I regret that I have no power to reduce the charges in the particular case referred to, but
I am considering whether it is not possible to revise the scale of fees so as to remove in future the anomalies which may occur under the present system. I may add, however, that no profit accrues to the Exchequer from these transactions, and that, taken as a whole, the fees do not quite cover the expenses of the Ministry.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. RILEY: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of small holdings purchased by the occupiers under the respective Small Holdings Acts of 1892 and 1908 and the Land Settlement Act, 1919?

Mr. GUINNESS: Fifty-nine small holdings were sold to the occupiers under the Small Holdings Act, 1892, up to 31st December, 1907. The provisions of this Act as to purchase were incorporated in the Consolidating Act of 1908, and under the latter Act 67 holdings were sold up to the passing of the Land Settlement Facilities Act, 1919. The number sold since 1919 is 43. In addition, 185 small holdings have been purchased by sitting tenants from their landlords with the aid of advances made by county councils under Section 19 of the Act of 1908.

KENYA (LAWS, NATIVE LANGUAGE).

Mr. GILLETT: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to translate the laws of Kenya Colony which affect native races into their own language of Kishwahili?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): As far as I know, no such proposal is contemplated, and it is doubtful whether it would be effective in view of the very small number of literate natives. Ki-Swahili may be described as a lingua franca of the East African coast and is not the native language of the inhabitants of the Colony, the majority of whom speak other languages.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is
in a position to make any statement as to the Government's intentions with regard to the proposed reform of the House of Lords; and whether he proposes to deal with this matter during the lifetime of the present Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the last part in the affirmative.

Captain BENN: What answer did the Prime Minister return to the assertion by the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders), that the Conservative party do not represent a majority of the electors of this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know to what my hon. and gallant Friend alludes.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Does the Prime Minister really believe that this Government has any right whatever to make such a huge constitutional change for the purpose of protecting his own party now against public opinion?

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman must see the proposals before he describes them as "a huge constitutional change."

Mr. BATEY: Is the Prime Minister aware of the result of the Wallsend by-election; and, in view of that result, does he not think it unwise to do anything with the House of Lords?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to introduce this proposed Measure in the Autumn Session this year?

The PRIME MINISTER: The words used were "in the lifetime of the present Parliament."

Captain BENN: The right hon. Member for Wells, who introduced the deputation; said that the Conservative party do not represent a majority of the electorate. I ask the Prime Minister whether that is his opinion, and what answer he gave?

The PRIME MINISTER: I did not hear such a statement from the right hon. Baronet.

Commander WILLIAMS: Could not this particular desire for reform be met by a little accelerated promotion?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is a very indelicate suggestion.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not make their requests so publicly.

POST OFFICE (NIGHT ALLOWANCE).

Mr. GILLETT: 47.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that, with the exception of the auxiliary or part-time sorting force employed within his Department, all other grades and ranks of postal servants receive a night allowance of eight and a-half minutes between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m., he will now consider the advisability of granting the same privileges to those at present exempted?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The matter referred to is one of several on which representations have been made by a deputation from the Auxiliary Sorters' Association. The association have been informed that their claims will be reconsidered in the light of whatever award is made on the claims on behalf of the larger Post Office classes which are being referred to the Industrial Court.

Mr. GILLETT: Can the Noble Lord say when a definite answer is likely to be received by these people?

Viscount WOLMER: It depends upon the date of the award.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

HENDON PAGEANT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state what are the net receipts from the Royal Air Force display at Hendon this year; which Royal Air Force charities will benefit; and what is his estimate of the number of persons who witnessed the display?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Acton on the 15th instant;
as regards the second part, the proceeds will go to the Royal Air Force Memorial Fund.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I have put this question twice. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when I may put it again for an answer?

Sir S. HOARE: I am sorry that I cannot give an answer now. I have not yet received the details, and I am afraid they are not under my control. As soon as I receive them, I will let my hon. Friend know.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under whose control they are?

ANTI-AIRCRAFT PROTECTION (MIDLANDS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the absence of anti-aircraft protection for Sheffield and the Midlands; and if any steps are being taken to remedy the deficiency?

Sir S. HOARE: I have been asked to reply. The defence of the areas referred to is an integral part of the scheme for the defence of this country against air attack. It would not be in the public interest to discuss the actual dispositions of the units included in that scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it to be understood that there are no anti-aircraft defences in the Midlands whatsoever?

Sir S. HOARE: The hon. and gallant Member must understand nothing except what I tell him in the answer.

Mr. THURTLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only real anti-aircraft protection there can be for this particular area is a policy of peace?

Sir S. HOARE: That obviously does not refer specifically to my Department, nor does it arise out of the question.

CIVILIAN AIR TRAFFIC.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to give commercial facilities to civilian air travel on an equal scale to that given in France, Germany, and the United States of America?

Sir S. HOARE: I am not clear as to the exact information which my hon. Friend desires, but if he is referring to aerodrome facilities, wireless, meteorological, and other ancillary services for the assistance of commercial flying, I am able to state that this country is not, in these respects, behind the other three countries mentioned. If, on the other hand, he is alluding to "subsidies," whilst France and Germany subsidise commercial aviation on an extensive scale, no subsidies are, so far as I am aware, given to air transport companies in the United States of America. I may add that my hon. Friend will find some useful information on the subject in the "Annual Report on the Progress of Civil Aviation" for 1925–26, which will shortly be laid before the House.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not our civilian air traffic far ahead of that of the United States of America?

Sir S. HOARE: It is difficult to make comparisons. There is no civilian air traffic, strictly speaking, in the United States of America. There is only a postal service. I would rather not be drawn into making any comparisons.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (RECORD AND PAPER KEEPER).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 50.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department why a temporary messenger who was a non-service man has recently been promoted to record and paper keeper in the Department of Overseas Trade, when ex-service men with equal qualifications were available in that Department for such a promotion?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The claims of all the ex-service messengers in the Department were reviewed for the post in question, but they were not considered to be so strong as those of the man who has been appointed, and who had performed the duties of the post for upwards of seven years. With regard to the question of military service, the messenger referred to volunteered in 1915 for War service and under the Derby scheme in 1916. He came up four times for medical examination, but was rejected on all occasions.

CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (for Mr. HORE - BELISHA): 37.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, taking the whole of the retirements of civil servants, he will give the percentage who retire at different ages from 55 onwards?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret that this information is not available.

INLAND REVENUE (OVERTIME).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (for Mr. HORE - BELISHA): 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of hours overtime, paid and unpaid, performed by the established and temporary clerical staff of the taxes branch of the Inland Revenue Department for the year 1925?

Mr. McNEILL: The total number of hours overtime, paid and unpaid, worked by the established and temporary staff in question during the year ended 31st December, 1925, was some 932,000. This figure represents 105 additional hours' work per annum per unit of staff.

ROAD VEHICLES BILL.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to introduce the Bill dealing with road vehicles?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am not in a position to add anything to the answer, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, which I gave on the 29th June to the hon. Member for Southwark Central.

Sir W. SUGDEN: May I ask if, before this Bill is introduced, the hon. and gallant Member will take the guidance of the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Chief Constables, and see that both children and civilians are properly considered in regard to protection?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

BRITISH TRADE (FINLAND, BALTIC POLAND AND RUSSIA).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 53 and 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade

(1) if he will give the figures showing the imports and exports between this country and Finland, the Baltic provinces, and Poland, for the years 1912 and 1913, and for the last six years;
(2), if he will state the imports and exports between Russia and this country

The following STATEMENT gives the INFORMATION desired so far as the PARTICULARS are available from BRITISH RETURNS.


Country.
1912.
1913.
1920.
1921.
1922.
1923.
1924.
1925.



(A) Imports consigned from—



1,000£
1,000£
1,000£
1,000£
1,000£
1,000£
1,000£
1,000£


Russia (former)
40,539
40,271
33,523
See new classification below.


Russia (U.S.S.R.)
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
2,695
8,103
9,266
19,774
25,329


Finland
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
7,721
10,434
13,205
13,804
13,223


Estonia
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
730
1,136
1,828
2,462
1,812


Latvia
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
1,618
3,005
5,660
6,375
5,271


Lithuania
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
344
1,116
817
735
475


Poland (including Dantzic.)
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
1,840
2,863
5,362
8,320
5,143



(B) Exports of United Kingdom Produce and Manufacture consigned to—


Russia (former)
13,738
18,103
11,992
See new classification below.


Russia (U.S.S.R.)
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
2,181
3,641
2,492
3,860
6,166


Finland
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
1,932
2,761
3,911
4,558
3,959


Estonia
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
3,890
1,030
921
628
626


Latvia
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
521
1,118
1,502
2,207
1,616


Lithuania
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
53
116
217
315
298


Poland (including Dantzic).
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
3,002
2,435
2,722
3,500
3,708



(C) Exports of Imported Merchandise consigned to—


Russia (former)
8,003
9,591
4,841
See new classification below.


Russia (U.S.S.R.)
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
1,210
970
1,989
7,212
13,269


Finland
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
970
707
922
1,019
699


Estonia
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
379
356
451
286
306


Latvia
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
425
282
367
222
181


Lithuania
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
1
2
2
16
22


Poland (including Dantzic.
Not separately recorded. Included for the most part with Russia above.
1,867
637
973
1,507
889


NOTE.—Prior to 1st April, 1923, the particulars relate to the trade of the British Isles with the countries specified. Since 1st April, 1923, they relate to the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only with the same countries.

COASTGUARD (SCHERMULY PISTOL ROCKET APPARATUS).

Mr. AMMON: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the invention of the Schermuly pistol rocket apparatus; whether the apparatus has been submitted

for the years 1912 and 1913, and for the last six years?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I will answer these questions together, and, as the answer involves tables of figures, it will be circulated, should my hon. and gallant Friend agree, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

to any tests by the experts of his Department; whether it is proposed to adopt the same as part of the life-saving equipment for the coast-watching service; and whether he will recommend that all passenger and commercial vessels should be equipped with the apparatus?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): My attention has been called to the invention to which the hon. Member refers, and arrangements have been made for the apparatus to be tested by His Majesty's Coastguard. The Board of Trade have issued a notice recommending that line-throwing appliances should be carried on merchant ships; but it is not the practice of the Department to recommend any particular proprietary appliance.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND (EDUCATION GRANTS).

Mr. LUNN: 58.
asked the Secretary for Mines how much money has geen granted from the Miners' Welfare Fund for mining education in each year since the passing of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Act, 1920?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The first allocation from the Miners' Welfare Fund for education was made in 1922. The total amount allocated to date for that purpose is £540,805; this includes a recent allocation of £150,000 for endowing a national scholarship scheme, and also allocations amounting to £254,022, which are at present provisional

ALLOCATIONS from the MINERS' WELFARE FUND for MINING EDUCATION.


Year.
From the District Funds.
From the General Fund.
Total.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1922
…
6,204
0
0
7,207
0
0
13,411
0
0


1923
…
4,000
0
0
3,233
0
0
7,233
0
0


1924
…
4,850
0
0
28,158
15
6
33,008
15
6


1925
…
11,308
18
0
20,428
0
0
31,736
18
0


1926 (to date)
…
3,561
16
0
197,830
18
3
201,392
14
3


Total to date
…
29,924
14
0
256,857
13
9
286,782
7
9

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS (JUNIOR DIVISIONS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many youths at present in junior divisions of the Officers' Training Corps joined at the age of 13, 14, 15, and 16 years, respectively; and whether there is a maximum age for joining a junior division?

only, pending acceptance by the grantees of the conditions imposed upon them. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the separate figures of confirmed allocations for each year.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is seeking to strike a mortal blow at the development of mining education by passing the Mining Industry Bill?

Colonel LANE FOX: No.

Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this sum includes any grants made by the local district committees?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir. I cannot give the actual figures off-hand, but it does include that.

Mr. SPENCER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this sum is the chief sum which is being applied to mining subjects strictly, and whether the additional sum which has gone to other forms of education are included in this amount?

Colonel LANE FOX: I must have notice of that question.

The figures of confirmed allocations are as follow:

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the number of boys who are joining the association is large or small?

Captain KING: It was at the hon. Member's request that I undertook to get a Report of the last year's working of the Officers' Training Corps placed in the Library, and it is there now.

Mr. SMITH: That Report does not give any figures with regard to the number of boys of the age of 13, and I am asking whether there are a large number of them joining at that age?

Captain KING: I can give no information. As I have said we have no information on that point.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that the general age as regards industrial occupations is 14, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that for the purposes of apprenticeship to a military vocation the age of 13 is a little too low?

Captain KING: It is not an apprenticeship to a military occupation, and I do not think a boy is too young to learn how to defend his country.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.

Mr. SMITH: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to establish a tank or armoured-car unit at Cambridge University?

Captain KING: I am unable to say when it will be possible to proceed with the formation of a tank or armoured-car unit at Cambridge University, which is held up for financial reasons.

Mr. SMITH: Can we be told whether, when military developments are undertaken by a university, the War Office has any right to make appointments to the staff of the university, and whether it does exercise any such action?

Captain KING: I do not think that arises.

ANGOLA AND SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (BOUNDARY).

Colonel DAY: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is able to state the nature of the agreement with the Portuguese delegates, following the negotiations as to the boundary of Angola and South-West Africa?

Mr. AMERY: The negotiations on this subject have been conducted in South Africa by representatives of the Union and Portuguese Governments. I have not yet had details as to the result of the negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH RESIDENTS, 1917.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the number of British subjects who were resident in Russia at the outbreak of the revolution in November, 1917; and how many of these were still at liberty in Russia prior to the landing of British forces at Archangel, Murmansk, or Vladivostock?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I regret that I have not the information required to enable me to reply to either part of this question.

BRITISH CLAIMS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of negotiations with Russia being resumed, he will support the claims against Russia of British subjects who were arrested by the Soviet Government between the dates on which British naval or military forces were first landed at Murmansk, Archangel, or Vladivostok, and the date on which all assistance from Great Britain ceased to the Russian generals who were opposing by force the Soviet Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Penistone.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House the approximate amount of the sum raised by the Russian Government from British nationals before the War for the purpose of railway and other public utility loans; whether the interest on any of these loans is being repaid; and whether any attempts have been, or are being, made to secure a return of the capital so expended?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The total amount of holding of pre-War Russian State and Municipal Loan registered by
British claimants with the Russian Claims Department is about £40,000,000. A large proportion of these loans is understood to have been raised for public utility purposes. No interest on those loans is being repaid. In reply to the last part of the question I would observe that our claims against the Soviet Government for the payment of their predecessors' debts must necessarily form part of the negotiations for a general settlement which, as my hon. Friend is aware, have been suspended since 1924. I see no immediate prospect of their resumption.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether any real efforts are being made to try to get rid of this question once and for all?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It has been stated several times by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that we are awaiting certain constructive proposals from the Soviet Government.

Mr. MARCH: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us in what years these loans were applied for and obtained?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. THORNE: Have any constructive proposals been put forward from this side to the other side?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly. The Soviet Government know perfectly well the attitude of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SUBMARINE M1 (SALVING).

Mr. HORE - BELISHA: 64.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps nave been taken to salve the M1; and whether, seeing that it is reported that the salvage of the American submarine S51 has been successfully accomplished, he will consider employing similar devices in the salving of M1?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The wreck of M1 was not definitely located and, therefore, no steps could be taken to salve her. In the case of the United States Submarine S51, the wreck was located in, approximately, 20 fathoms, a depth beyond which divers cannot operate with
success for any longer period. M1 is believed to be lying in about 40 fathoms, at which depth divers could only work in a special dress, which is now on trial but has not as yet proved reliable.

AUXILIARY SERVICE (PENSIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (for Mr. HORE BELISHA): 66.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a decision has been arrived at regarding the position of officers in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service and the making of this Service a pensionable one?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have nothing to add to the previous replies given to the questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member, which stated that a decision would be given as soon as possible.

WEST HAM GUARDIANS.

Mr. GROVES: 23.
asked the Minister of Health the names of the persons appointed to act as the guardians of the poor of West Ham; what salary is to be paid to each person; whether due public notice will be given of the day, time, and place of any meetings of such guardians; and will the practice of providing facilities for the presence of the Press and public be maintained?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Order which contains the names for which he asks. The remuneration of the appointed guardians is still under consideration. With regard to the last part of the question I am not aware whether the guardians have yet come to any decision as to their procedure.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of assistants which these three Commissioners he has appointed will have?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They have no other assistance except that of the local body.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to allow the guardians whom he has appointed to meet in secret if they desire?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will wait and see whether they wish to do so.

Mr. GROVES: Has the right hon. Gentleman not given them any other instructions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have no special position with regard to these guardians. They are in the same position as any other boards of guardians.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will there be a Supplementary Estimate for these salaries until such time as the ratepayers can find the necessary money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. That will not be necessary.

Captain BENN: Who will settle the scale of salaries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall.

Mr. THURTLE: Is not the man who pays the piper entitled to call the tune; and has not the Minister of Health authority over these guardians as to whether they meet in secret or not?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him whether the great point of this whole business is not to save money for West Ham?

CANADA.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he was consulted by, or advised, the Governor-General in any way on the recent crisis in Canada?

Sir F. HALL: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he was consulted by, or advised, the Governor-General of Canada in any way in the recent crisis?

Mr. AMERY: I will answer these questions together. The answer is in the negative. The intervention of His Majesty's Government in the domestic affairs of a Dominion is precluded by recognised constitutional principles.

MINERS' WIVES AND CHILDREN (RELIEF).

Mr. JAMES BROWN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Ayr Parish Council has stopped the payment
of relief to miners' wives and children, and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend is making inquiry and he will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as he has ascertained the facts.

Mr. BROWN: I assume the right hon. Gentleman will expedite the inquiries, so that there will be as little hardship as possible?

Major ELLIOT: We are making inquiries by telegraph.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received any reply from the Lichfield Guardians to the letter he addressed to them on 12th July; whether he is aware that the guardians, since receiving the letter, persisted in diminishing their scale of relief, and that the board are to meet to-morrow to take a final decision on the question of entirely suspending out-relief to miners' wives and children, and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question, I am awaiting the report of the decision which the guardians will take tomorrow.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that to-morrow there may be no relief whatever for miners' wives and children, and is not the board of guardians really abrogating its functions and duties?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is passing a verdict before the evidence has been heard.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it not part of the statutory duties of a board of guardians to relieve destitution, and has not this board definitely declared its intention, after this week, to grant no further relief to miners' wives and children?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already called the attention of this board to what are their statutory duties, and that is I understand the subject of their consideration at their meeting to-morrow.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

Mr. SPEAKER: A similar notice has been given by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Would the Prime Minister kindly tell us what business it is proposed to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: The programme is:
Monday: Supply, Committee, Estimate for Department of Mines; Air Expenditure, 1924–25, Committee; Ways and Means, Committee.
Tuesday: Completion of Report stage and Third Reading of the Mining Industry Bill.
Wednesday: Supply, Report, Scottish Estimates; Air Expenditure, 1924–25, Report; Ways and Means, Report.
Thursday: Appropriation Bill, Second Reading.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
On Monday and on Wednesday at 10 o'clock, the Committee and Report stages respectively of all outstanding Votes in Supply will be put from the Chair.
If time permit on any day next week we shall take small Orders on the Paper, including the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When is it proposed to take further time for a Debate on the Guaranteed Loans for Palestine and certain East African Colonies, which were discussed last night?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer at the moment. We shall try to take a further stage before we rise for the Recess.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice that last night a great many Members of all parties, especially his own, with a great deal of Colonial knowledge, wished to speak, and that, as we had had no Colonial Office Estimates for discussion, last night was the only opportunity for raising both East African and Palestinian
questions, and will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to see that this important matter is brought on again at a reasonable hour?

The PRIME MINISTER: I did notice the very remarkable interest shown last night.

Captain BENN: Does the Prime Minister intend to renew the Emergency Regulations, and, if so, when will the necessary Proclamation be made, and, if the Regulations are renewed, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to renew them all, or only those powers necessary to deal with coal rationing, and so on?

The PRIME MINISTER: Without notice I cannot answer that question, but such as are renewed will, of course, be debated in this House.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Moneylenders Bill [Lords]): and Mr. Morgan Jones of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Coroners (Amendment) Bill [Lords] and the Local Government (County Boroughs and Adjustments) Bill [Lords]).
Report to lie upon the Table.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,

Post Office (Sites) Bill,

Tramways Provisional Order Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill, without Amendment.

Kingston - upon - Hull Corporation Bill,

Guildford Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL,

"to amend the Law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. McNEILL; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Sir Alexander Sprot and Mr. Crompton Wood; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Smedley Crooke and Mr. Hilton.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: further reported from the Committee that they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D (added during the consideration of the Mining Industry Bill): Mr. William Adamson, Commander Bellairs, Mr. Betterton, Mr. Ellis, Sir Leolin Forestier-Walker, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Harney, Mr. Hartshorn, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Mr. Kidd, Mr. Lougher, Mr. Lumley, Mr. Morris, Mr. Reid, Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr. Luke Thompson, Lieut. - Colonel Lambert Ward, Major Sir Granville Wheler, and Mr. Murrough Wilson.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Lieut.-Colonel Heneage; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Douglas Newton.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fourteen Members to the Standing Committee on
Scottish Bills (in respect of the Burgh Registers (Scotland) Bill): the Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Captain Bourne, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Connolly, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Lord Fermoy, Mr. John Guest, Mr. Lawson, Major Alan McLean, Mr. Russell, Captain Geoffrey Shaw, Major Steel, and Mr. Windsor.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill [Lords].

Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain. FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

CLASS IV.

Orders of the Day — BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £28,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid." — [NOTE: £16,000,000 has been voted on account.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Last year the Committee were good enough to allow me to inflict upon them a somewhat long speech containing a more or less comprehensive survey of the progress of education. I do not propose to repeat that speech to-day, especially as the time for Debate may be curtailed, and the more so because my last year's speech still represents my views and intentions. But I have a certain number of things to say, and some information which I think the Committee will wish to receive on various points. I will try to be as brief as possible, and my speech will take the form rather of notes on various points than of a connected survey. First, I will say a word about the figure of the present Estimate, and, in doing so, I assume that Members of the Committee will have before them the Memorandum on the Estimates which, as usual, we have laid before the House. We are asking the Committee this year to vote, comparing like with like, £1,129,233 more than the actual net expenditure of last year, and practically the same amount more than the actual net expenditure for 1924–25. This amount is based on an assumed expenditure by local education authorities of £710,000 more than last year, and
£2,017,000 more than the actual expenditure by local authorities in the year 1924–25.
I may also tell the Committee this, which I have already stated outside, that the figure of the present Estimate is the figure which I indicated approximately to representatives of local authorities as long ago as 17th December last, and it was the figure upon which the famous document called Memorandum No. 44 was based. As the Committee know, I had hoped last November that we should have been able to carry out the work this year for somewhat less money, but on the same date as I have alluded to, 17th December, I told the House that those hopes had been upset by the Estimates which I had received from local authorities, and since that date the Board has not had in mind any figure for the total Estimates but that which is now in the Estimate before the Committee.
In approaching educational administration, I think that the country ought to understand and face two facts clearly. The first is that education is an expanding service and must be an expanding service. The second thing is that that service should not be assumed to be equally expansive in all its parts. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) two years ago laid before the House in general terms a programme of educational advance which all parties accept, and at the last Election, some months after that, a similar programme was laid before the country by the party to which I belong. But I am impressed by the fact that hitherto we have not made nearly as much progress as we should have made in defining the actual implications of that programme by a survey of the work actually needing to be done, and also we have, perhaps, ignored the fact, which is forced more and more upon our attention, that we are not in this programme building a new structure upon a stable foundation, that as a matter of fact the existing services of education are in a state more or less of flux, that changes are taking place in the groundwork upon which we are building, and that it is of vital importance to survey accurately the respects in which increased expenditure upon our existing establishments is required.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle took the first step
in that direction by initiating a survey of defective elementary school premises in urban areas, and we have now completed a survey of the whole country both urban and rural areas. I have tried to carry on the same kind of survey by the three year programme procedure, and by the investigation of the authorities' plans which I have been carrying out this spring. The programme procedure, as I anticipated, has proved somewhat slower in execution than it might have been, and at the present moment I have only received about 200 programmes out of 318 authorities. They are coming in steadily now, and, I hope, by the end of the year we shall be in a position to judge what are the programmes required for the years 1927 to 1930. A good deal of apprehension has been expressed that any survey of this kind, any careful investigation of what needs to be done, will have a depressing effect on a number of authorities, and will encourage them in undue economy. Whatever may be my merits or demerits as President of the Board of Education, I think the Committee will agree that I have been about the country a good deal in the last eighteen months, and what impresses me is that, so far from that being the case, a survey of this kind has had and is having a definitely stimulating effect on all types and kinds of authorities throughout the country. I have no hesitation in saying that in the way of concrete plans and actual work initiated, there is more going on throughout the country in the local education areas at this moment than there has ever been at any moment since the War. That fact is very encouraging.
In conducting any survey of this kind—a comprehensive survey of our system of education—we come up against certain obstacles, and to a considerable extent they are statutory obstacles. Parliament in its wisdom, as the result of a course of development, has divided education into more or less watertight compartments for the purpose of administration and other purposes. Apart from statutory restrictions, which I cannot discuss on these Estimates, the difficulties of making an adequate survey have been enhanced by administrative restrictions, and administrative Rules and Regulations. For that reason I have tried to do two things in the past few months. I have tried to revise the regulations for elementary,
secondary and technical education, and the training of teachers in such way as would wipe out, as far as possible, unnecessary distinctions and unnecessary detailed requirements, and would enable us to survey and to care for educational needs according to the actual facts, with our minds free from cramping, detailed Regulations. I think these new Regulations, while they have given rise to a certain number of criticisms, have been generally approved.
The other thing I have tried to do is to reorganise the inspectorate. A Circular—No. 1382—went out yesterday on this subject. I am sorry I could not get it out before, but it was published in the Press this morning. We have these different types of education, and we have, especially at the age of 11, boys going to various types of schools, some of them coming within the compartment of secondary education and others within the compartment of elementary education, and our inspectorate was divided on the same lines so that you had one set of people responsible only for looking after elementary schools, and another set of people responsible only for looking after secondary schools. It was very difficult for the inspectorate, who ought to be the main advisers of the Board, to get and to give to the Board a comprehensive view. Our reorganisation of the inspectorate has, therefore, proceeded on the lines of amalgamating the three branches of secondary, technical and elementary education in their higher stages so that in each division there will ultimately be one divisional inspector with his assistants responsible for surveying the needs of their area as a whole, in co-operation with the local authorities, and reporting to the Board upon the nature of the education as a whole and its efficiency, and upon the further provision required in all types of school. I think those two things will contribute in a considerable degree to removing some of the obstacles to a comprehensive and close survey of what is actually required. It may remove some artificial barriers and bring us more closely to the real facts.
Let me make one or two remarks in relation to the survey which we are trying to carry out of elementary education. The first thing with which we have to deal is the size of classes. That is the
starting point, in my judgment, for any survey of elementary education. What is the position? I may say at the outset that there is no change, and will be no change in the Board's general policy in regard to the size of classes. If I may take up an ill-informed remark, which I have heard going about outside, there is no intention of bringing classes up to a standard of 50 in infant and junior schools. We are being guided by the same maxima and the same standards as those which guided the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor, and previous Governments. What are the facts in regard to the size of classes? On 31st March, 1924, there were 24,972 classes with over 50 children on the roll. All these figures relate to children on the roll and are not average attendances. They do not mean that actually 50 children are being taught in all these classes, but that 50 children are on the roll. On 31st March, 1925, a year later, there were 21,345 such classes, or a reduction of more than 3,600. I cannot give the figures for 31st March, 1926, which are not yet available, but on that date, as compared with 31st March, 1925, there were 17,000 more children in average attendance, and, on the other hand, we had 1,129 more teachers.
Therefore, according to those figures, there is little doubt that there has been a further considerable reduction in the number of classes with over 50 children on the roll. This means that on 31st March, 1925, 14 per cent. of all the classes in the elementary schools in England and Wales had over 50 children on the roll. What about the remaining 86 per cent.? While 14 per cent. of the total had over 50 children on the roll, 56 per cent. had not more than 40 children on the roll, and 28 per cent. had actually not more than 30 children on the roll. Of course, the rural areas are responsible for the greater part of those small classes: 84 per cent. of the classes in rural schools have not more than 40 children, and 60 per cent. not more than 30 children. But even in the urban areas the figures are remarkable: 46 per cent. of the classes in urban areas have not more than 40 children and 17 per cent. not more than 30 on the roll: that is to say, there are 46 per cent. of the classes in urban areas where from day to day and week to week and term to term there
are less than 40 children being taught together, and 17 per cent. where there are actually less than 30.
4.0 P.M.
Compare those figures with the proportion between the children over 11 in the elementary schools and the total number on the roll. On 31st March, 1925, about 32 per cent. of the children on the roll were over 11 as against 46 per cent. of the total number of classes having not more than 40 children on the roll in urban areas. Moreover, as will be seen in the Memorandum, in the next three years you will, as compared with to-day, have a fall in the number of children over 11 in elementary schools of upwards of 20 per cent., so that by 1930 there will not be more than something in the neighbourhood of 28 per cent. of the total number on the roll over 11. I think it is obvious from those figures that, so far as the number of teachers to children is concerned, we have every possibility with our present staff of eliminating classes of 50 or more altogether, and establishing a maximum of 40 for children of over 11, which are the two things that we have been chiefly trying to do.
Let me say a word about the teaching staff. In a paper, which a good many hon. Members have seen, and which the authors have very kindly communicated to me, I see it is stated that since 31st March, 1922, there has been a decrease of 2,501 in the number of teachers. That is perfectly true. In the same period there, has been a decrease of over 230,000 children in our average attendance. At the beginning of that period there were, on the average, throughout the country, about 30 children per teacher. We have only reduced our staff of teacher, in the ratio of one teacher for every 92 children less in the schools, so that, as a matter of fact, to-day the proportion of children to teachers is smaller than it has even been in the history of this country. In the last two years, since 31st March, 1924, while there has been a decrease of 74,000 children in average attendance, we have increased the number of teachers by 2,368. I think it is broadly true, taking the country as a whole and only taking the country as a whole—there are many areas where a considerable increase in the number of teachers is necessary in order to reduce the size of classes—that the reduction in the size of classes has gone now as far as it can go without a reorganisation of the actual
material accommodation for the children. An increase in the teaching staff to-day will not lead in any appreciable degree to a further reduction in the size of classes. What is the matter with the school organisation to-day is buildings rather than staff. That is why, taking again the country as a whole and subject to one disturbing factor which I shall mention in a moment, I do not regard the expenditure on teachers' salaries as a factor which is likely to, or which need, expand to any considerable degree in the near future. I do not think that is one of the expanding factors for the immediate future. Let me say a word about my present discussions with various authorities as to teaching costs.

Mr. COVE: The Noble Lord has made a very important statement with regard to the expansion of the teaching staff. He said, as I understood him, that there was no need to expand it. May I ask him whether the Board have considered any policy in relation to that statement—for instance, whether there is any policy of the Board for controlling supplies, and so on.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member had better wait till I have finished my statement. I shall have a little more to say regarding that matter. If hon. Members will consult the Memorandum they will see that one thing is clear, namely, that local authorities this year are estimating, in the aggregate, for an increase in teaching staff which is wholly impossible, quite apart from any question of policy. There is no prospect of local authorities realising the increase in the teaching staff implied in their estimates, and many of my discussions with the local authorities are concerned—I suspect mainly—with the inherent over-estimating of the salaries needed for teachers. But besides that, there is nothing more clear than that in a certain number of cases, at any rate, a very high teaching cost is the hall-mark of a badly organised elementary school system. You have a number of areas where, owing to bad organisation, owing to a number of very small schools and no provision for central or senior schools at all, you have a large teaching cost without providing any advanced instruction for the older children corresponding to that cost, and that is a very frequent
cause of high costs of teaching That appears quite clearly if you take one or two figures.
I want to show the Committee quite frankly how my mind is working. Take authorities who are spending more than 190 shillings per unit of average attendance on teachers' salaries. There are 52 of them in the country. Twenty-two are on Scale 4, and I will deal separately with those. A higher expenditure than 190 shillings is probably necessary in the great majority of Scale 4 areas. Five are rural areas with a very sparse population. There special difficulties arise, and I will not deal with them. But 24 are Scale 3 urban areas, or semi-urban areas, and one is actually a Scale 2 area. If you compare these Scale 3 areas with the expenditure on teachers' salaries in admittedly progressive areas of various kinds—take two counties, Kent 176 shillings and Surrey 171 shillings; and two county boroughs, Manchester 178 shillings and Norwich 173 shillings—it is quite clear that these figures require investigation. If I may come to Scale 4 areas for a moment, the figures are rather interesting. Let me give a selection. London spends about 204 shillings on teachers' salaries per head. It is a gradually ascending scale: Erith, 211 shillings; Tottenham, 221 shillings; Bromley, 233 shillings; Hornsey, 253 shillings; and almost at the head we get a Scale 3 area in the shape of Barry with 250 shillings. Those are figures which obviously require investigation. The question of Hornsey has been mentioned. I am discussing not only those figures, but the larger bulk of their elementary education figures with Hornsey. I have given them a figure for their consideration, and I think if the right hon. Gentleman has now read the letter he will see that I have not issued any final ultimatum.
I think it is clear that areas of that kind are very often in a position, owing to the type of educational organisation that they have adopted, where any change, a change which may very often lead to a great improvement in education, can only be taken gradually. No one wants to dismiss existing teachers. The change may have to be spread over a number of years. What I think one can do is to say that the change shall begin now and that a definite plan shall
be adopted for a better organisation of education. Apart, of course, from the question of the number of teachers, there is the question of the qualifications of the teaching staff—the proportion of certificated and uncertificated teachers, and so on. If hon. Members will look at page 21 of the Memorandum, they will see that an increase in the proportion of certificated teachers and a very considerable decrease in the number of unqualified teachers has been accompanied by another change, which is a decrease in the number of head teachers. To a certain extent, the cost of those two things balance each other, and it is with those and many other considerations in mind that I say we need not, and I think should not, look upon expenditure on teachers' salaries as a highly expansive part of the education system.
I must say one word on the question of the training of teachers. I will not deal with the question of the Board's recent draft Regulations, except to say that I think in the final form of those Regulations I shall be able to meet most of the criticisms that have been directed against them. The Board's general policy in regard to the training of teachers, I think, is now fairly well understood, namely, that while maintaining the responsibility of the State and the local authorities for seeing that the children whom we compel to go to school are taught by fit persons, we desire increasingly to enable training colleges to take their proper place in the general educational provision of this country in co-operation with the universities and to give them the freedom and the right to exercise their academic judgment in regard to the education they give to candidates for the teaching profession.
I am anxious to relax control by regulation over training colleges for this reason, among others, that for a certain type of teachers—for instance, for rural teachers—I feel pretty sure that we need to consider very carefully what is the type of training best suited to maintain a supply of teachers for our rural schools. The pupil teacher system has done that to a certain extent, and I think we should be careful not to discard any source of supply of good teachers before another method of supply has taken its place, but we are all agreed, whatever we may think of
pupil teachers, that that system is not adequate to the purpose, and I believe that we should approach that problem of the rural teacher afresh. We must, indeed, remember that probably nowhere in this country are general education and general culture more important than in the rural areas. Probably nowhere is it more important, for instance, merely from the point of view of keeping the children on the land, apart from anything else, to create the taste for good reading. Yet, at the same time, it is of great importance to give teachers in the rural schools a training which will fit them to command the confidence of rural communities, and will enable them to be leaders in rural communities and to represent the type of education of which rural communities chiefly stand in need. That is a problem which, I am sure, we have to consider increasingly in the future.
I have said that this survey of the size of classes brings us down to the question of buildings and accommodation, and that is the main problem that we have to consider at the present moment. Now I come to the Black Lists, which are our main preoccupation this afternoon. I call them Black Lists for short. We have schools on these lists with something over 500,000 children at present on the roll. Of these, 27 per cent. are council and about 73 per cent. voluntary schools. What progress are we making? Of 219 council schools on Black List A, 62, or about 30 per cent., have either already been dealt with or are dealt with by proposals contained in the revised forecasts for this year, and the revised forecasts also provide for 30 more schools to be built by local authorities which will take the place of black listed voluntary schools. The other council Black List A schools have, generally speaking, I can see by the programmes already received, been dealt with in the programmes, and the programmes give every hope that we shall really have tackled that part of our problem completely, or more or less completely, by 1930. The total amount of elementary school buildings provided for in the revised forecasts for this year, leaving out building proposals which have been dropped in the course of discussion and consideration is 244 new schools and 111 enlargements — a very large programme.
Now, coming to the voluntary schools, their progress has, needless to say, not been so great, or, perhaps hon. Members opposite would prefer me to say, has been even less great. Some 21 voluntary schools have been removed from Black List A since the original lists were prepared, and 30 more, as I have said, are being dealt with by local authorities this year, making a total of 51, or about 10 per cent. of the total number of voluntary schools on Black List A.
On this problem of voluntary schools, I would like to say two things, and to say them with emphasis. I have evidence from many parts of the country that the authorities responsible for voluntary schools are seriously tackling this problem in co-operation with the local authorities. I think it is obviously inevitable that we should leave the voluntary bodies a considerable time in which to complete any programme of improvements which they may draw up, but what we say, especially now that the local authorities, so far as the council schools are concerned, have brought forward in their forecasts for the present year and in their programmes for 1927–30, proposals which will deal with, at any rate, the vast majority of the schools on Black List A, is that it is essential that we should have, as soon as possible, a definite programme in each local education area for dealing with the voluntary schools, spread over a number of years, no doubt, but a definite programme, so that we may be able to see the end of the work, and I would appeal to voluntary school authorities to get those programmes prepared and decided upon as early as possible.
The second thing I want to say is this: I have a certain amount of evidence that those responsible for voluntary schools, particularly perhaps in the case of schools which are in individual ownership, would undertake the necessary repairs and structural improvements, but they say: "Who knows that the Board's inspectors may not make a new set of demands two or three years hence? Then we shall have spent all this money, and we shall be no further forward." I want to say, with the greatest possible emphasis, that the purpose of the preparation of these lists
was to have a definite list of requirements instead of precisely that vague threat and criticism hanging over the heads of the schools, and, having produced those lists, they are, so far as we are concerned, and so far as those schools are concerned, final, and there is no danger—and I think, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman opposite would associate himself with me in this—of the Board of Education now, or at any future time, coming forward with a new set of demands relating to those schools. We are trying to define our needs, and, having defined them, we certainly shall not introduce further confusion into the problem by a new set of requirements in the future.
I must go somewhat rapidly through the remainder of the remarks I have to make. In elementary education we have to deal with the vitally important point of surveying the accommodation and equipment for advanced instruction for the older children. There we come on the building problem again, but I want to say one thing in this connection. The one subject on which I feel a certain amount of apprehension at the present moment is the question of books. It is always on books that a local authority finds it easy to economise. It is always easier to blue pencil the requisitions for books than to go in for any more systematic method of economy, and there is, moreover, a widespread tendency in all kinds of education in this country, university, as well as secondary and elementary, to attach more importance to furniture and equipment, and especially equipment, than to books. That may be seen from the figures, which are also contained on page 24 of the Memorandum, of what happened during the Geddes period. During the Geddes period you had a reduction in expenditure on books and stationery of no less than 25 per cent. You had an increase on the other hand, during that period of two years, in furniture and equipment, and at the and of the Geddes period the proportion that was being spent on books and stationery, as compared with furniture and equipment, or as compared with the upkeep of the buildings, was smaller than it was at the beginning of the Geddes period.
That represents a real danger, and I cannot help feeling this. I do not think
that the amount of money which we are providing this year, the amount of expenditure which we are assuming the local authorities will incur on "other expenditure," which includes books, among other things, is inadequate to provide for a considerable, steady improvement in the provision of books in the schools. I do not believe that it is inadequate, but I think that the question of the kind of book which requires most to be provided has been taken too little account of in the past and has been given too little systematic consideration. I think there is a tendency for a large proportion of the money that is spent on books and stationery to go on the provision of text books of second-rate or even third-rate quality very often. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are cheaper!"] I know they are cheaper—and far too little to go on the provision of standard books, the sort of books which may create a real taste for reading in the older children, and also the standard books which the teacher very often himself requires to read for the purposes of the lessons which he is giving. I feel that we need the advice not only of teachers and local authorities but in particular of learned societies on the kind of books which ought to be, and can be, provided in the schools. I would urge local authorities not to devote their first economic impulse to books, and I would ask them to consider whether some measure of systematic conference with teachers and with learned societies, with the assistance of the Board, on the whole question of the provision of books in the schools is not now urgent.
I come now, for a few moments in my survey, to secondary schools, and here the position is this: Next September there will be about 13,500—not 1,350, as I have seen my words quoted recently—more places available in secondary schools than in September two years ago. During the past financial year the Board approved plans for about 7,000 new places in the secondary schools, and judging from the revised forecasts I should think it probable that the Board will approve in the current year something in the neighbourhood of 8,000 further places. That does not represent the main expenditure on secondary school building, for perhaps nobody realises the large number of secondary schools which need
new buildings. Very often, the new buildings thus required do not result in increased accommodation but the inspectors of the Board will very often advise that new accommodation for existing schools is more urgently needed than new school provision. I am now trying to estimate the new secondary school buildings thus required. It is a much more serious liability than, perhaps, anyone realises, and will probably delay the provision of new secondary schools in future years. I have already given several times the figures of the present number of pupils in secondary schools. There are more than ever before. There are more free places than ever before. Here, again, is another thing which I am trying to make the subject of a detailed survey and which, again, has excited too little attention, and that is that this increase in the net number of secondary school pupils has been made in spite of a serious local fall in the number of pupils in some schools. In one school in London since 1921 the number has fallen by no less than 170. In the south-western counties, and in at least one western county which I know, there has been a very considerable falling off in the number of pupils in particular schools. Hon. Members may ask the reason. There are several reasons probably. There is bad trade locally, to which I shall hereafter refer. There is the competition, to a certain extent, of the central schools, but I think in various types of areas—

Mr. COVE: Is that falling off not due to a general increase of fees?

Lord E. PERCY: Not, I think, since 1921; I do not know what value can be attached to it but I think that in county areas there is evidence to show that when we approach a proportion of about 12 secondary school places per thousand of the population, we get to a position in some areas where there is an appreciable difficulty in maintaining the supply of pupils in the schools. I only mention these facts for the purpose of showing that I am trying to carry out a systematic and detailed survey with a view to estimating what is really important for us to know in the matter of secondary school buildings.
The facts which I have tried to lay before the Committee, at any rate, lead to the conclusion that we have this year
a very considerable programme of expenditure, and are endeavouring to provide for a considerable and steady advance. If I had been presenting these estimates to the Committee two or three months ago, I should have felt fairly certain that the programme of building would be well maintained. The position in which I am now talking to-day differs owing to difficulties, which makes the position more uncertain.
I should just like to say one or two things in respect to three disturbing factors that we have to face in the carrying out of our programme which largely depends upon building. In the first place there are the building costs. The costs of building both elementary and secondary schools are, to my mind, out of all proportion to what they really should be. I am convinced that far more economical building is possible without any harm to the efficiency of education. I think it has been very clearly shown that the newer type of elementary school is a great deal cheaper than the older type, which is still being built. In the matter of secondary education building costs are quite peculiarly high, in fact almost prohibitive, costing anything from £100 to £120 per school place. It will be for the Board of Education and for the local education authorities to consider very carefully whether there cannot be effected a substantial reduction of building costs.
The second disturbing factor is one which touches the point put a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove). In my observations this afternoon, in surveying our educational schemes, I have assumed the possibility of a systematic reorganisation of schools, but in many areas we are faced by a great movement of population which makes it difficult for the authority to make such a plan. They are having to provide new schools for the population moving outwards from the centre of the towns. This kind of new school accommodation to which I am referring accounted for 83 out of 140 elementary schools which were approved last year. That sort of movement of the population does mean a considerable increase in teaching staffs, because you have to
transfer the school population from one school to another gradually. You are having to provide as you go along more new teachers for the new schools than you would have to provide if you had a systematic reorganisation. That is one of the disturbing factors you have to take into account, and it is difficult to estimate its consequences and results.
The greatest difficulty is the present industrial crisis, which affects everything, including work on school buildings. It affects the resources of the local authorities which can be devoted to school buildings. At the present time the local authorities are spending each week on the feeding of the children enough money to provide out of revenue new accommodation for 1,000 children. You also come across a number of instances where workmen are thrown out of work or placed on half-time as the result of the present crisis, and their sons have to be withdrawn from the secondary schools where they have won free places. I can only hope that these effects will be only temporary, but it has thrown into uncertainty the whole programme for this year. I can only hope that these disturbing factors will soon pass away, and we shall be able to realise that kind of progress which I have endeavoured to indicate.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I have observed much too large a tendency on the part of speakers in this House to try on these occasions to traverse the whole educational field. The right hon. Gentleman has shown a wisdom which I shall try to follow in the way he has made his statement. What I shall do is to make as short a statement as possible of our main objections to his administration. I am sorry I cannot take the course which we took last year. I only wish I need not have moved any reduction of this Vote. What a happy family we were when we were sailing along in the good ship "Continuity"! The right hon. Gentleman was then the rising hope of educationists, the local authorities and the teachers. I am afraid that happy time has passed now, and that the best that can be said is that all education is now on its guard against the Noble Lord. I am very sorry for that, because there is something of tragedy
in the Noble Lord's position. We have listened to-day to the speech he has made. He shows his interest in many questions in a way that very much disarms criticism—his keenness about schemes, his hopes about the schools and the black list, his objection to economising in school books. It makes it all the sadder that his general policy is so exceedingly discouraging to local authorities and to the country at large.
Local authorities and teachers watch with apprehension each new move of the Noble Lord. For he has shown versatility and perseverance in a remarkable degree in the campaign of parsimony to which he has vowed himself. I must remind the Committee of the history of this year, and of what are the great educational facts. First of all, there was the execrated Circular 1371, which was withdrawn. Then there was Memorandum 44, which was so unpopular even amongst Conservative local education authorities that it was superseded. What is the right hon. Gentleman's present position? He is working under Clauses of the Economy Bill, and is exercising over local authorities a policy of detailed restriction. That is what we have to deal with. Private and confidential letters are going out to local authorities stating the views of the Board. It is because of what is going on now that I am moving the reduction.
Everything goes to show that there is a change of attitude on the part of the Board. The Board is no longer primarily the patron of progressive authorities. It is no longer primarily engaged in encouraging enterprise on the part of local authorities. It is no longer chiefly concerned in insisting on a minimum of efficiency, but is chiefly concerned in restricting expenditure. It reserves its most vigorous criticism for the active and enterprising authorities. It is inclined, as far as we can make out, to insist on a maximum not being exceeded rather than in insisting on a minimum being maintained. There has been a revision of all the Regulations. It is impossible to deal with them to-day except in the most general way, but the main characteristic of the changes in the Regulations is the sweeping away of all definite standards. The excuse given for this is that local authorities ought to have great latitude
in their operations. Everybody will have a good deal of sympathy with that point of view. I do not deny that a great many of the Regulations under which the Board has been working may have been in some respects too detailed, or that there might be a curtailment of them; but that is a very different thing from giving local authorities absolute latitude, subject only to the supervision of the Board, exercised not in relation to standards which are laid down and which this House knows, but standards which the Board keeps to itself and which are not announced to the public. It is quite right that local authorities should have latitude, but not latitude to do ill. Why is it necessary that all the minimum standards under which local authorities have been working hitherto should be swept away? Those minimum standards might have been kept, and, outside them, the local authorities might have been allowed considerable freedom. In the case of a remarkable number of local authorities the way in which this new latitude exercised by the Board is being used is to repress progress.
I will take one or two examples of what appears to be going on. I will allude first to a question which I wanted to have discussed, though I am not now so sure that it is necessary to discuss it, because I rather think from what the Noble Lord said that he has had better second thoughts on that question. I refer to the Training College Regulations. The whole movement of opinion in regard to the training of teachers is in the direction of university training for all teachers. We know we are a very long way from achieving that, but that is the direction in which the best educational opinion is moving. As it will be a long time before we can attain to that standard, we accept as second best the training college system, under which teachers in training get a certain amout of what I may call second-class academic training as well as a year or so of pedagogic training. It may very well be a national ideal that the training colleges ultimately should become merely places for a short pedagogic training at the end of the academic training, but that implies that there has first been a thorough academic training at the university. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have begun at the wrong end. Before there
has been any very great expansion of academic training at the universities, he has said the training colleges may, if they like, give only the one year of pedagogic training. We object to that. If they are to give only one year of pedagogic training, they must give it to people who have had a thorough academic training first. It is not enough to say that it should be given to children who have gone through to the second examination in the secondary schools. The training colleges universally oppose this proposed change, and I very much hope from what the Noble Lord has implied to-day, that he is going to give way to these objections.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could not the Noble Lord tell us just what he is going to do in this matter, because a great many of us are extremely interested in it, and what is the use of discussing a hypothetical case?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not know whether the Noble Lord will be any more explicit than he was, and I should be very glad if he or the Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about it either now or subsequently. I come now to another part of these Regulations, to the Code. Very important changes have been made, and one of the most important is that the detailed building regulations disappear. In future local authorities erecting school buildings have to work under a quite vague clause. In future the premises of the school or centre must be safe in the case of fire, must have
suitable and sufficient sanitary and cloakroom accommodation for teachers and children, must be adequately lighted, warmed and ventilated, must be kept in proper repair, and must be suitably arranged, furnished and equipped for instruction.
That shows, in vague phrases, all that a school building ought to be, but what does it mean? All the details of the existing Regulations disappear. I cannot see what the objection is to having minima in the Regulations of the Board. I do not see why it should be left to local authorities to provide less than a certain floor space or air space. I understand the local authorities are already beginning to take advantage of this freedom,
and to say, "We will go back to the 1914 standard in our new schools as regards floor space." What is the objection to saying in the case of new schools that there must at least be so much air space for the children and so much playground space? There is on foot to-day a movement, patronised by Royalty and all the great ones in the land, to provide playgrounds for the people. This is not the moment for cutting out any details of the miserable minimum which now exists as to playgrounds in connection with schools. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have got rid of these definite standards. In any case I do not think it is a desirable thing to substitute absolute Departmental discretion for what were really Parliamentary standards, laid down in the Code. I think this House ought to be very jealous of permitting that. There are some Ministers of Education with whom the House might have been ready to leave absolute discretion, but I am not quite certain that that would apply to the Noble. Lord.
I come now to a very serious matter, the policy with regard to staffing, and what seems to me to be a very formidable campaign which is developing against the more progressive authorities. All definite standards of staffing appear to have been swept away. This is how the new Code runs:
The authority must maintain an approved establishment of suitable teachers for their area and must satisfy the Board, if required, as to its distribution.
All the Regulations requiring so many teachers to a given number of children are swept away. I do not say the detailed Regulations were the best that could be devised, nor do I say, although they were a minimum, that they were by any means the standard down to which the local authorities were working, Far from it. They were not satisfactory as minima. But there they were. The idea that the Board were going to insist on a certain definite standard—all that has gone. The Board, in future, are going to say to local authorities whether this, that or the other school is sufficiently well staffed. I should have thought it would have been far better to agree upon a minimum standard of staffing, and to see that all local authorities did not go below that. It becomes
important to see how the Board are interpreting their new Regulations, and the plan on which they are working. The new Economy Act enables the Board to restrict the expenditure of local authorities generally by comparing the standard of a given authority with the standard of some other authority, and saying to that authority, "Now you have got to adjust yourselves to the standard of this other authority which we (the Board) think more reasonable." The Board, apparently, are beginning to go to authorities and to say, "You are spending an awful lot compared with this, that, or the other authority. You are spending an awful lot on your teachers. I am not going into details with you, but, somehow or other, you must bring down your expenditure."
5.0 P.M.
There is the case of Hornsey. It is typical of a good many. I have not the least doubt that Hornsey has a very high standard of expenditure. The Noble Lord showed us that that was the case. Hornsey is a very progressive authority. It is not progressive because it has got a very large Labour majority; it is rather the other way. There is no reckless Labour majority of members on that authority. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is not one!"] It has a very high staffing standard. It, apparently, has very small classes, and it has a very high proportion, of certificated teachers. This, of course, means expense, but Conservative Hornsey thinks that it is worth spending money, and knowing that, hitherto, it was safe in getting its half out of taxation, even from a Labour Government, it goes ahead, but suddenly comes up against a Conservative Minister, and he demands a great reduction. It is true that the question which I, with only partial knowledge, put to the Noble Lord to-day was, in a certain degree, inaccurate, inasmuch as I suggested that he had asked for a definite reduction of teaching staff which would have involved the dismissal of 67 out of 210 teachers. He said he has not required the authority to make any specific reduction in their teaching staff, but what he has done is to compare their expenditure with London, and to say that he does not see why they should spend more than London What I want to know is, why they should not? I want to know why on earth Hornsey, if it be a more progressive place than London, should not have small
classes? I do not know why any authority which likes to have them should not have classes of 30 throughout its elementary schools to-day, without any criticism from the Government. In fact, if an authority says that children of the working-classes may be taught in small classes, I do not know why the Government should not say to that authority, "You are to be put on a pinnacle, and set up as an example to the other authorities, and we are not going to do anything whatever to depress your exertions."
What is happening at Hornsey, as far as I understand, is that the local education authority is being asked to make an enormous reduction in its education expenditure. It is being asked by the Board to reduce expenditure by £10,000 more than it has already reduced it. What the authority says is, that if it reduces that expenditure, as the Noble Lord wants it to do, the only way in which it can do it is by dismissing 67 out of 210 teachers. I believe that this policy is entirely and fundamentally wrong. I do not believe local authorities, like that of Hornsey, ought to be discouraged in any degree. What will happen if this kind of thing goes on, is that, first, of course, the progressive local authorities all over the country are going to be discouraged. The second, and even more important, thing is, that the teachers all over the country are going to be discouraged. I, really, do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's position with regard to the question of the reduction of excessive classes. He says, first of all, that he is still in favour, as I understand, of the process of reducing the size of classes, according to the policy of Circular 1325, which was issued during our Government. I understand that he still says he wants to reduce the number in all classes from 50, and I suppose he would subscribe to a maximum of 40 for the higher classes. Although he is anxious that this should take place, when he finds an authority which has risen to that standard, he goes to that authority and says, "You are overstaffed." He says it is true he does not want to drive up the small classes into big ones, but he takes the measure which makes that necessary to the local authority which has gone below those numbers.
I am bound to say, from what the Noble Lord has actually said himself, it is clear to me that what he intends is, as far as possible, to make 50 both the maximum and the minimum. That appears to be the policy, and I say so, because it can be the only real meaning of some rather enigmatical sentences in the last big Circular which he issued. In that Circular he said:
The Board are committed to the policy of reducing the size of classes over 50 as the first call on the available supply of teachers, and on public funds available for the payment of salaries. If, moreover, the Board are to recognise the need for an increase in staff in areas where the average attendance has substantially increased, they must expect some reduction in areas where the average attendance has substantially diminished, and where the size of classes was not previously excessive.
Of course, that is not the complete policy, but one sees the direction. He says he must have something to compensate for requiring certain local authorities to spend more on staffing and to bring down the size of classes, and he is going to compensate by driving up the classes in other districts. He is doing that in the case of Hornsey and a number of other places, to whom he has been sending letters, and giving this new policy of the Board. I sncerely hope that policy is not going any further. I say that it discourages local education authorities, that it discourages teachers, and, if it be carried much further, if local authorities like Hornsey have to dismiss a large number of their teachers, you are going to have a large overplus of teachers; you are going to have the old teachers thrown out of work, and very likely the older ones unable to get fresh places; and you are going to have a large number of new teachers coming into the profession from the training colleges out of employment and unable to find it.
There is only one other matter about which I wish to say a word. It can only be one general word, and, I hope, a fairly cautious one, but I do say it with all seriousness. There has been a great reduction in the Board of Education itself. The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to tell us about those reductions when he brought in his Estimates, but as I did not ask him, I do not complain.

Lord E. PERCY: I have them here.

Mr. TREVELYAN: There have been great reductions. Several assistant secretaries have gone, the best part of 100 clerks, and five inspectors, I believe, and, unless rumour be a lying jade, there are a good many other inspectors who will be going fairly soon. It is very difficult to relate efficiency to numbers, and nobody will be justified in saying for certain that the work of the Board cannot be effectively done with rather fewer staff than formerly. I cannot say it is my own feeling or experience that it is very much overstaffed, but I suggest at this moment when the right hon. Gentleman is expounding a policy, the operation of which in the country is going to depend more upon the discretion of the Board of Education than it did before, if the local authorities are to be kept up to an efficient standard you want more rather than fewer officials to carry out such a policy. Considering the general policy of economy which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted, I very seriously suspect the reductions he has made in the one sphere in which he is directly able to do it himself. In that connection I think I ought to say that there are one or two retirements in the higher branches of the Board of Education of exceedingly valuable public servants before pensionable age at three months' notice. That is a very rare thing if not an innovation in the public service, and it is causing profound pertubation in the Civil Service and creating a feeling of uncertainty. Whether the Noble Lord knows it or not it is the talk of the public service and not of his Department alone.
I want to say one final word. A great many of us are extraordinarily uneasy about the policy being pursued by the President of the Board of Education. We do not very much mind whether the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing this policy of his own volition or the volition of the Treasury, but we are uneasy, and I am perfectly certain that we represent uneasiness in the country which is not merely on this side of the House. I do not think the Noble Lord fully appreciates the amount of feeling there exists on this question. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of this as being a sham battle, but it is nothing of the kind, and it is far from it. It would be difficult for some of us to express how much we deprecate the general policy, which seems now to be the accepted part of the present
regime. If ever I use strong language, I like to shelter behind respectable and if it may be ecclesiastical authority. I will not use my own words, but I will use the words recently uttered by Bishop Gore in a speech he made on education and in which he quoted the sentence from Memorandum Number 44 as follows:
It is essential that expenditure on education should be reduced.
Bishop Gore's comment on that was:
It is the very devil of a sentence, and it is the very opposite of the truth.
I subscribe to that. The Government are in financial difficulties and the President of the Board of Education has found it necessary to have a year or years of delay, and reaction, and we are told we have to wait for a revival of trade. Let us make it clear that we challenge the whole position that educational expenditure ought to depend in any sense upon the general condition of the trade of the country. We challenge that basic policy which has been laid down by Sir Eric Geddes, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Noble Lord. When good times come, if ever they do recur, you will not be able by the expenditure of money to improvise an educated generation of the children who are now losing educational advantages. We are inclined to say that in times like these when the gulf between the rich and the poor is greater that is the time when the nation ought to try to bring the two closer together by providing the thing which a nation can provide and that is a national education.

Lord E. PERCY: I was asked by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Butler) to make a brief statement about one-year courses in training colleges, and I have decided to do this. I still believe that we must have freedom to consider in many connections the length of the course or courses for teachers in certain classes of training. It is primarily a question to be considered by academic judgment, and I have set on foot in a circular a proposal which is now the subject of consideration that the Board's examination functions should be devolved on bodies representing co-operatively the training colleges and the universities, and I think that when we get those bodies set up they will consider the whole question of the length of training college courses, their extension, and possibly their
reduction in certain circumstances. I do not want to prejudice that decision by making any statement before the bodies to be set up have had opportunities of considering this question. I propose during the intervening period to keep on with the present system, but I propose to leave out of the Regulations for the training of teachers all that would make the recognition of a college dependent upon its giving a two-year's course in every case. I propose, therefore, to leave the position quite unprejudiced during the intervening period until the new arrangements contemplated by Circular 1377 are settled.

Mr. HARRIS: At the commencement of his statement the President of the Board of Education seemed to advocate one-year courses, but towards the end of his remark he appeared to go back on his original position. He went out of his way to say that he was not going to object to colleges which required only one-year courses.

Lord E. PERCY: I said we should continue the present system until the new arrangements were set up, and then I stated that the whole subject would have to be considered afresh.

Mr. HARRIS: I am glad to hear that, and it only shows that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to listen to reason. I am willing to leave this matter to the experts, because I am confident that they will recommend that the training course should extend over two years. When this question is referred to an expert committee, they are bound to recommend a long and not a short course. I would like to say that I was very pleased with the statement made by the President of the Board of Education. On educational matters I am rather an optimist, although the right hon. Gentleman himself is somewhat of a pessimist about the future. I can understand people being a little suspicious about the professions of the right hon. Gentleman, because we were so buoyed up 12 months ago by the splendid call to arms which he gave to the teaching profession, but afterwards he ran away from his own battle cry, and then we began to lose faith in his sincerity. I am willing to believe that constant criticism from above and below the Gangway has converted the right hon. Gentleman, and that in these matters he has seen the error of his ways
The right hon. Gentleman has been very prolific in the publication of memoranda. I would suggest that his speech should be published in all quarters for the public to read. If the right hon. Gentleman circulated his excellent speech to all local authorities, then they would take it as embodying his sincere opinions. Really, the trouble in regard to the policy adopted during the last three months is that it creates an atmosphere of suspicion among the teaching profession and our educational authorities. The result is that education authorities say to me, "We do not know where we are. Everywhere there is a feeling of uncertainty. Are we to go on with our work, or is the Board going to sweep down upon us and reverse our policy?" What the President ought to do is to endeavour to restore confidence, and I believe the speech he has made to-day will do something in that direction.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the First Lord of the Admiralty as an example. I know the First Lord is not nearly so eloquent as the President of the Board of Education, but he knows how to take a firm stand, and when he wants ships he gets them. I want the President to take up the line that if he wants schools he must make up his mind to get them; and if more expenditure is necessary, and he means business, the £ s. d. must be found. Is the policy of the Board of Education going to be to egg on the local authorities to do their duty, and, when it comes to footing the bill, is he going to run away and refuse to pay his share? If that is so, then it is a very unsatisfactory state of things.
I am very glad to hear the Noble Lord's reference to central schools. We know that there are in the country great gaps, especially in rural education. There are great difficulties in connection with the different kinds and types of voluntary schools scattered over the country, with old buildings, unsatisfactory staffing, and out-of-date plant, and it has been suggested that the real solution of some of the difficulties of rural education can be found in the spread of the central school. In my experience in London, the greatest promise of any educational experiment lies in the central school, but it is very largely spasmodic. In London, we are fortunate is being well provided with central
schools, but whether you have a central school or a secondary school is, as the Noble Lord knows, largely a matter of accident. It depends on whether you have an education authority that is able to provide secondary schools, or whether its powers are limited to providing merely elementary education, so that it has to put up with a central school because it conforms to the Act of Parliament and comes within the category of an elementary school. I want to see, and I believe every educationist who is really keen on the development of a democratic system of national education wants to see, all these artificial divisions between central schools, secondary schools, and elementary schools done away with. We have to aim at a great national system of education very much on the lines of that of France. In France it is often said that, just as every soldier has a field marshal's baton in his knapsack, so every elementary teacher has the chance of a headship at the highest lycée in the land. That is what we want to see in our own country. We want to see all these artificial divisions done away with.

The CHAIRMAN: Could that be done by the administrative act of the President, without legislation?

Mr. HARRIS: I am, perhaps, getting a little outside the province of the Estimate, and I will not pursue that matter any further, except to say that I believe something of the right kind of economy can be got in these directions. At any rate, in the training of teachers it must always be borne in mind that, if only university education can be spread in the training of elementary teachers—which would not involve legislation—it would make it possible for the elementary teacher to reach the very highest posts in the country. As it is, the university degree is conspicuous by its absence. I think I am right in saying that an inquiry made some time ago showed that the number of teachers with degrees in elementary schools was only some 3 per cent. in the case of men teachers, and ½per cent. in the case of women teachers. On the other hand, in Scotland, quite recently, a university degree has been declared essential for every elementary teacher.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): That refers to men only.

Mr. HARRIS: I was going to say that that is as regards men, but the women have petitioned that the same standard shall be required of them, and I know that the Noble Lady will agree with that. That is a happy state of affairs, and it does mean that there is the possibility in Scotland, which I believe has nearly reached the condition of actual fact, of the teaching profesion being regarded as one profession, and all these artificial barriers between elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, and central school teachers, being done away with. I think that much can be done by the President on those lines if he takes the right steps in reference to the training of teachers now, when he is trying to reform and reorganise that training, to make the teaching profession one great profession devoted to the training of the young, whether it be the poor man's child or the rich man's child, whether it be in the middle class school, the ordinary elementary school, the great public school, the secondary school, or the central school.
There were several omissions from the President's speech, but that was justified by his desire for brevity What I and, I think, most people in London are concerned about is the education of that great army of young people who leave school at the age of 14. There are, I believe, every year, something like 600,000 pupils leaving the elementary schools, and, out of this large army, only about 60,000 attend any place of education or social supervision afterwards, in spite of all the attempts of local authorities to provide evening classes and other kinds of training. That is the serious problem that we have to face. One of the remedies advocated by many people is the raising of the school age. That is an ideal that we should like to see, but, at any rate, in the present state of public opinion, in the present state of our finances, and with the present attitude of the Board, we cannot hope to bring it about in the immediate future. That places upon educationists, and particularly upon the Board, the responsibility of offering every inducement for continued education in some form that will bring into the schools those children who go out to work at the age of 14.
It is very sad to see, in Memorandum No. 44, which has not been withdrawn, a special attack on these evening schools. It will be remembered that it was pointed out that the attendances at these classes were not up to the requisite numbers, and it was suggested that economies could be obtained by closing a number of them. If the Noble Lord will listen to those who have had experience of this matter, he will learn that those are the very classes which should be encouraged and stimulated, instead of being closed down, because they are the most important for the education of the young, Of course, classes that offer social inducements, such as gymnastic classes, music classes, art classes, or dramatic classes, are naturally popular, and there is no difficulty in keeping up the attendance, but in the case of the educational classes the problem is extraordinarily difficult. It is difficult to get young people who have been working all day at business or in a factory or office to sit down at a desk and do educational work, and I would say to the President that, in his desire for economy, he should not discourage in any way whatsoever the evening school movement, which has done more for the people of this country than, probably, any other social scheme for the betterment of young people.
Another thing with which the President did not deal is the question of technical education. I am very glad to see that the Annual Report of the Board for 1924–25 in its opening chapter deals with technical education. May I say, in passing, that I think it is unfortunate that the issue of this Report should always be so belated, because, although it really deals with current problems, it always appears, from its date, to be dealing with stale problems. I suggest that an improvement might be made in that direction. The Report would be read with greater interest and more authority if it were brought out at a date nearer to that of the Estimate. We have a very complete history of technical education, but it is classed with the whole problem of continued education. I think that that is unfortunate. What the country wants to know is what is the present position with regard to technical education throughout the country. An inquiry is long overdue. I believe there has been some kind of joint inquiry between the
Board of Education and the Ministry of Labour, but, at any rate, there is a growing public opinion, not only among educationists but also among industrialists, both employers and employés, that our technical education is not all that it should be.
It is quite accidental what technical education we have in a particular part of the country. There may be large areas where it is up to date and efficient. In London, far various reasons, our technical education is fairly advanced, and in some other parts of the country very satisfactory provision is made; but there are large areas where there have not been any public-spirited citizens prepared to provide the necessary buildings, where the education authorities have been backward, and where, in consequence, the provision of technical education is most inadequate. I am told, for instance, that in Nottingham, where there has been great trade depression and where the lace industry has had a great set-back, the provision for art training is most unsatisfactory and much behind-hand. Everybody knows that what Nottingham has been suffering from more than anything else is the want of artistic development in the design of lace, as compared with many other trade centres throughout Europe, especially in Germany and France. That is a kind of subject which the Board, responsible as it is for the training of the young, should be considering. We are told in the Report that in large areas the provision is most inadequate—that the buildings are most unsuitable and that, owing to their unsuitability, it is almost impossible for the work to be properly carried out. Paragraph 46, on page 30 of the Report, says:
At the same time it must be admitted that the accounts of technical school premises given by Your Majesty's inspectors show that the work is sometimes carried on not merely under serious disabilities, but even under conditions of material invironment which must be distasteful to teachers who have known the amenities of study at the universities and cannot but repel those students, at least, who have had recent experience of modern secondary schools.
A large number of examples are given in the Report, and I can speak from some knowledge of the matter myself. I am on the Advisory Committee of the Central School of Arts and Crafts. That is one
of the finest schools, not only in this country but in the world. It draws to itself visitors and students from America and even from places as far away as India, China and Japan. That building, however, is most inadequate, not merely in the smallness of the classrooms and so on, but even in such necessaries as lavatory accommodation. Of course, the main difficulty is lack of funds, and I say that this is the kind of thing that the President should take in hand. He should not only survey the buildings provided throughout the country for technical education, but should inquire how much the needs of industrialists are being catered for by the training of young people in all the ramifications of technical education—not vocational education, but technical education, including design, chemistry and other sciences, and all the subjects that are so essential in modern industry. Both employers and employés are waking up more and more to the need for the application of science and art to industry. It is very remarkable that in the coal inquiry both sides called out for education and for the application of science to the coal industry. It is no use, however, talking about that if you have not the essential technical schools, and, what is even more important, the necessary technical instructors. There is a great need, as the Report points out, for the training of the necessary teachers. It is not everybody who can teach. It is all very well to bring a chemist out of the factory and ask him to train a lot of young people, but, if he has not learned the art of teaching, he cannot really do that work properly. No doubt Germany, at any rate before the War, was a long way ahead of us in regard to the development of technical education as a whole, though there are places in the country which vie with any part of the world in their provision for technical education.
Another matter that was omitted from the President's statement—it may be a small matter to some, but to my knowledge it is a very vital matter—was the provision of special schools. There is nothing more pathetic in our great cities than the large number of mentally defective and physically defective children — cripples, short-sighted and blind children, children suffering from all kinds of disabilities. It is one of the curses of civilised life, of overcrowded streets and had housing, that
they seem to breed these puny, miserable, mentally starved children. In London we have done great work in giving these children a chance by giving them an extra two years in special schools. Not only do we in that way give a chance to the child, but we save the State in the long run, because these children, instead of becoming a charge on the State, and ultimately coming on to the Poor Law, become, in nine cases out of ten, breadwinners able to earn their own living, as the result of some special craft or skill which has been developed in them by this special instruction. I see that there is still a very large number of areas in which no provision whatsoever is made in the way of special schools. There are whole areas—27 county authorities and 102 non-county authorities—who make no provision whatever for special schools. I know the President is conscious of this deficiency.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present, Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. HARRIS: I know the small attendance is not due to lack of enthusiasm for education, but to a more picturesque ceremony outside the precincts of the House. I was calling attention to a rather significant paragraph in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates on the cost of special schools. It says:
In view of the very high cost which would be incurred by providing special schools on existing lines for every child who is defective within the meaning of the Education Act, 1921, the Board are constantly considering in the light of past experience of special schools and of advances in medical and surgical knowledge, by what means a satisfactory scheme for all these children can be brought within reasonable financial limits.
I am all for economy and against waste, but for God's sake do not economise at the expense of these unfortunate children. Do not let us hold up their training while the Board is going on inquiring as to some ideal method. This is a matter that cannot wait. Once a child has missed his opportunity, has missed those precious two or three years when he can get training, it is too late. The training must be when the child is young and susceptible to training and discipline. While the President is inquiring do not let local authorities get off their responsibility and
their duty to these children, who have a special claim on the State and the nation. I am full of optimism. I hope the President is going to turn over a new leaf. If he does—it is never too late to repent—I can assure him that he will have the good will and support of educationists all over the country. We know the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a hard nut to crack, but if the President will see that he is provided with the necessary funds to enable local authorities to go on and carry out their duties, he can be assured of the support of all parties in the House. Do not try to discourage the progressive educational authorities. It is his duty to stimulate the backward ones. That is his responsibility and his duty to the nation. If he will take that as his responsibility he can be assured that he will have the united support of all parties, irrespective of politics.

Captain WALLACE: The practice of using Committee of Supply for discussing, questions which relate solely to one's own constituency is one which, I suppose, is justifiable, but which I think ought not to be encouraged. It is tedious for everyone except the Member who is speaking and the Minister who may perhaps deign to reply. My excuse, if excuse be needed, for trespassing on the time of the Committee is because I believe the situation which has arisen in Hornsey is so serious and of such importance that it is of interest to education authorities all over the country. I need not refer to the issue of Circular 1371 and its subsequent withdrawal. Those circumstances will be fresh in the minds of the Committee and of my noble Friend. It is enough to say that as a result of a conference which took place last December between the Minister and the local education authorities the President agreed that he would continue the percentage grant for the present financial year; secondly, that he would attempt to obtain the co-operation of the local authorities and that if he was going to bring in a block grant scheme, he would try to bring in an agreed one, and thirdly, and perhaps most important so far as the case of Hornsey is concerned, he said he would in any case give local authorities ample time to make the change. In return for these very substantial concessions local authorities all over the country agreed that they would send in revised estimates. On
22nd January Hornsey submitted an estimate of £115,750, representing a reduction of 2½ per cent. upon the previous estimate of £118,413. No reply was received from the Board of Education until 29th March, and by this time there were only two days left before the beginning of the present financial year. Also, as is not unnatural, the local education authority rate had already been passed by the council. Moreover, this letter when it came on 29th March was in no sense final. Approval was withheld from the estimate but no indication was given as to what further reduction was required or how that reduction should be effected.
The Hornsey Authority continued to press the Board of Education, in so far as local authorities are able to press the Board of Education, during the ensuing weeks, but no further reply was received until 10th May. On this occasion the Board still declined to indicate what reduction was required and stated that the method of carrying out any reduction was a matter for the local authority to decide. At the same time the Board said they would be happy to discuss the matter on the return of more normal conditions, this communication, of course, having been written during the time of the General Strike. On 4th June, a deputation met the Board, but no further reply was received with regard to either the amount or the method of reduction, and the only practical suggestion the Board of Education had to offer was that Hornsey should adopt the central school system. At this meeting the Hornsey Education Authorities said they would arrange to make a further cut of £2,000 in the Estimates, making a total reduction of £4,633 on the original Estimate sent in, or 4 per cent. on the total. It should be observed that the President of the Board of Education had accepted a reduction of 2½ per cent. on the original Estimate from the London Education Authority. Hornsey also agreed, when making this further offer of £2,000, that they would co-operate with the Board in exploring the possibilities of applying the central school system. On 19th June a conference took place between the Inspectors and the Chairman of the Education Committee and certain other local officials, and the Inspector said that the
Board were not now prepared to adhere to the establishment of staffing which they themselves laid down in 1923, and intimated that the Board now aimed at classes of 50 for children up to 10 or 11 and of 40 for children over 12 where accommodation of the rooms would admit of such a course. It was again proposed that the central school system should be established. On this occasion the local authority pointed out that even if they were to agree to the establishment of this system it could not possibly affect the expenditure for the current year. They also reminded the Board that by this time more than a quarter of the financial year had gone.
On 2nd July the Board communicated their decision. That is the letter about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) asked a question to-day. Their decision was that upon the two items, Loans and Special Services, which amounted to only £13,000 odd in all, the expenditure should be approved; but as regards the very much larger items of Teachers' Salaries, Administration and Other Expenditure, the Board intimated that they would reduce the amount to be recognised for grant from £103,486 to £93,086, a reduction of £10,400. In considering the problem with which this progressive authority is faced there is also to be added the sum of £3,300 in respect of preliminary expenditure on a new school, the construction of which the Board had ordered to be postponed. This expenditure was incurred last year with the Board's full approval. Why they refuse now to sanction it I have so far been unable to discover. Compared with the main question it is a subsidiary point, except that the provision of £3,300, in addition to the £10,400, makes the position of the authority much more difficult. The effect of this decision of the Board is in reality to establish a system in Hornsey this year which, if it is not actually the block grant, is something very like it, in so far as it relates to Teachers' Salaries, Administration and Other Expenditure. In that case, I submit that my Noble Friend is violating the assurance he gave to the local authorities in December that he would not bring in the block grant system this year, that he would not bring
it in in any case without consultation with the authorities and, more particularly, that he would give time to allow them to adjust their expenditure to the new conditions. The result of the decision is that since more than one-quarter of the financial year has gone, it is impossible to effect any reduction in the staff before September; therefore, Hornsey will be obliged to carry out in six months a reduction which should have been spread over a year, and, in any case, should never have taken place without due notice.
6.0 P.M
I do not deny that the expenditure of this local authority upon teachers' salaries, administration, and other expenses, is 315s. 2d. per annum per unit of average attendance. I do not deny that it is the highest with which the Board has to deal. Whether we have received value for our money or not is not a question for me now to go into. While we claim that we have received value, I admit that it is open to the President of the Board of Education to claim that an equally satisfactory result could be obtained by better administration with less expenditure. The only question with which we are concerned this afternoon is whether the President of the Board of Education has been justified in going back upon the promise which he definitely made to the education authorities. If the Board persist in its decision, and if the letter which was written on the 2nd July is their final word, I should like to explain to the Committee what will be the result of that decision. A sum of £13,700 will have been disallowed. The town council must therefore choose whether they will pay half that sum out of the rates, and thus abandon the whole principle of equal payment between the central authority and the local authority, or whether they will limit their expenditure as they are legally entitled to do, to 50 per cent. of the approved estimate.
I do not know what the local authority will do. I imagine that they will be bound to adhere to the fifty-fifty principle, and in doing that they will be supported by local authorities of every kind all over the country. In that case, it means that the full sum of £13,700 has to be saved somehow from education in Hornsey during the next six months. We have endeavoured to effect every practicable economy short of dismissing teachers. As a result of these economies
a further reduction was proposed to the Board two days ago. The saving in expenditure was increased from £4,600 to £5,650. That is the present offer of the local authority. That means that £8,050 has to be saved somehow. That can only be done, as I think my Noble Friend knows, by a reduction in the cost of teachers' salaries. In other words, it can only be done by the dismissal of a number of assistant teachers during the second six months of this year. The average salary of all assistant teachers in Hornsey is £310 a year. If we take that figure, a simple piece of arithmetic will show that it will be necessary to dismiss 52 teachers in order to save £8,050.
If those dismissals are to take place, I do not think it would be fair to take the average salary as the amount which would be saved. We must assume that if dismissals are made they will be made according to the least length of service. Those most recently appointed will have to go first. In that case, the average sum saved per teacher would be reduced. It is estimated that in order to save the £8,050 it would be necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle suggested this afternoon, to dismiss 67 teachers. The effect of dismissing 67 teachers out of a staff of approximately 213 is equivalent to a reduction of over 31 per cent. I do not think it is necessary for me to make any comment, either to the Noble Lord or to the Committee in general, as to the effect of dismissing 31 per cent. of your teachers. I refuse to believe that the Board of Education have said their last word on this matter.

Lord E. PERCY: Why does the hon. and gallant Member assume that all the saving can only be effected by the dismissal of teachers? There are other items of expenditure on which saving can be effected.

Captain WALLACE:: We have already made a saving of£5,600 upon other expenditure and, speaking with the comparatively imperfect knowledge of local details which almost any Member of Parliament must have, I do assure my Noble Friend that the rest of the expenditure has been combed through very carefully to produce the £5,650.
I should like to acknowledge, on my own behalf and on behalf of the local
authority, the courtesy and patience with which my Noble Friend has treated us in regard to this matter. He has been good enough to grant us long interviews, and I particularly appreciate the fact that he has promised to grant an interview next Monday to another deputation. If he accepts the statements which I have made to-day—and I do not think they are statements which can be seriously controverted—I would earnestly appeal to him not to go back on the promise he has made; not to insist upon a policy which must obviously do irreparable harm to the children in Hornsey, and not to be unjust—I hope he will not mind my using the word—to a local authority whose progressive policy has frequently been the subject of praise and commendation from his Department. Finally, I would ask him not to strike a fatal blow at that confidence which ought to exist and which must exist between the President of the Board of Education and those local authorities upon whose co-operation he must ultimately rely.

Mr. COVE: The hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace) has supplied the antidote to the optimism of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). The hon. Member for Bethnal Green derived his optimism from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Had I not known something of the letters that have gone out to local authorities, and something of the regulations that have been issued from the board, and had I not remembered also that it is the strong public opinion which has expressed itself in this country during the past year that has saved education, I, too, might have been optimistic after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going to take his speech as the basis of my optimism, except to say that it was the speech of an enlightened educationist. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will in future put into practice those high ideals which he enunciated this afternoon. His policy may be summed up in the phrase—if it can be summed up in a phrase—that it gives local authorities permission to be reactionary, because there is plenty of permission for local authorities to curtail education, but as far as his general policy is concerned there is no compulsion upon reactionary authorities to be progressive.
I wish to support the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey in the case that he has presented with regard to his constituency. The case of Hornsey embodies very vital principles of policy as far as the whole field of educational administration is concerned. Here is an authority that has taken the lead in eliminating unqualified teachers. Surely, no hon. Member, however keen he may be upon having value for money, will deny that that policy has been the best policy in order to get value for money. Here is an authority who have pursued the policy of constantly reducing the size of classes. The right hon. Gentleman said to-day that that was one of the vital necessities as far as a progressive education system was concerned. He said that it stood in the forefront of educational necessity. Here is an authority which has carried out the policy which the President of the Board of Education supported this afternoon, and be is now penalising that authority for carrying out such a policy. Hornsey has not—the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey will correct me if I am wrong—a single unqualified teacher. It has some classes of 50, but a large number of classes have been constantly reduced. What did the right hon. Gentleman say on that subject?
The Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education will reply, and I would like to ask her for specific information on one or two points. I find in the local press an account of a discussion at the education committee in Hornsey. Here is a paragraph relating to the question of larger classes:
The whole question of staffing was considered at a later conference. The Board were not prepared to adhere to the establishment of staffing suggested by itself in 1923, but intimated that they now aim"—
this is the important point on which I desire specific information as to the policy of the Board—
at classes of 50 for children up to 11 or 12 years of age, and of 40 for children over 11 years of age, where the accommodation admitted of such a course.
The details of staffing are gone, and in place of them we have the vague general statement, that the authority must main-thin and improve the establishment of suitable teachers for their areas, and must satisfy the Board, if required, as to the distribution of its staff. That
appears to me to be very vague. There is no safeguard in the Code for an authority like Hornsey. There is no safeguard for any authority in this country as to the requirements of the staffing in the school; it leaves the entire decision in the hands of the Board of Education. I am suspicious of that, not only in regard to Hornsey, but in regard to a large number of other authorities. Another circular has been issued by the Board, Circular 1375, which seems to follow up the Code. It says:
A settlement of the number of staff in each area would appear to follow naturally upon a settlement of the scales of salary which is now being completed.
Obviously, that is an economy regulation, and the Board of Education is now going to decide the question of staffing, not in relation to the number of children or the number of teachers, but by the total amount spent upon staffing in a particular area. It will mean that both in quality and quantity the Board of Education is going to ask for restrictions. I want the Noble Lady to tell me quite definitely and specifically whether it is the policy of the Board to establish the size of the class at 50 for children up to 11 and 12 years of age, and at 40 for children above that age. There is some reason to suspect that this is the policy of the Board, because it embodies practically the policy which has been called the policy of counterbalancing economy. In the staffing requirements at Hornsey you have the application of the principle of counterbalancing economy, and I say quite definitely that this policy will meet with the most strenuous opposition on the part of educationists throughout the country. An old professor, who used to lecture when I attended classes at college, used to say, "the smaller the child, the bigger the book," and the smaller the child, the smaller if anything, not the larger, the classes.
I do not want to bring party politics into this matter, but this is indeed class legislation of the worst character. It cuts right across the principle of equal advantages for the working-class children in elementary schools. You cannot give equal advantages to children in elementary schools in classes of 50 when children of the richer portion of the community are in classes of 10 and 12. [An HON. MEMBER: "What school?"] The
hon. Member can criticise my speech later on if he wants to. It is not merely a case of Hornsey. This is a widespread policy, and I have a suspicion that the Board is tackling Hornsey first because it is at the head of the list. Here they say is a good battleground on which to fight for a reduction in the staff employed by the local authority. The local authority says that it may mean a reduction of 67 teachers—it will certainly mean, before we are able to satisfy the requirements of the Board of Education, a considerable reduction in the number of teachers. This policy of the Board of Education will mean that we shall have thousands of unemployed teachers. Is it a wise economy? When the State, through its secondary schools, its training colleges, and its universities, has spent money on the training of these teachers, the President, in his enlightened speech, talks about stabilising the number of teachers employed. He stated that the sum necessary for teachers' salaries would not be expanded during the coming year. That means that the Board of Education is going to restrict the number of teachers during the next few years to the number at present employed, and, if possible, to reduce the number.

Duchess of ATHOLL: indicated dissent.

Mr. COVE: I see that the Noble Lady shakes her head, but I think she will regard it as a perfectly reasonable suspicion when I look to the case of Abertillery, where I find that the Board
are not satisfied on the information that the teachers' salaries might not be further reduced.
They do not mean a reduction in the number, and I know that the Board means that the Burnham scales should be carried on, but they want a reduction in the total cost, and you cannot get that without a reduction in the number of teachers. I find the same sort of thing in the case of Anglesey and Blackburn, where
the Board are not satisfied, on the information before them, that the expenditure under the head of teachers' salaries might not still further be reduced.
There are also Breconshire, Chichester, Enfield, Gloucester, Lindsey, and, as a matter of fact, the President has stated that letters have been sent to no less than 84 authorities in regard to a reduction in the cost. That is about one-
quarter of the authorities in this country. The Board of Education is therefore asking one-quarter of the authorities of the country to reduce their expenditure op teachers' salaries. The Noble Lord says that there has been a progressive reduction in the size of classes and that there are now about 21,000 classes with 50 children or over in them. He congratulated himself that the number was so few. But 21,000 classes of 50 children each means that more than 1,000,000 children are being taught in classes of 50 or over. They are not taught, they are drilled. You cannot expect the best possible education in large classes like this, and as long as they exist there ought not to be an end to the progressive policy of a reduction in the size of classes.
I want to ask one question. I want to be fair to the Board in its policy and action. It is admitted that 84 authorities are being attacked and threatened with penalties because they are too progressive. Can the Noble Lady tell us how many authorities have been attacked because they are reactionary, how many letters have been sent, out telling them that the size of their classes are too large and that they must reduce them? I have not heard of one, and I cannot find a single instance where the Board has exercised any pressure on reactionary authorities, and because of that I was rather inclined to modify my optimism when listening to the Noble Lord introducing the Estimates this afternoon. I tried to follow the Noble Lord in his explanation, but I am not quite clear what exactly he meant. It is vital we should be clear on this particular point. Has the Board abandoned the policy of one year's training, or has it not? You cannot get a sense of vocation in one year's training; you cannot get the spirit or the technique of the job in one year; and this policy of one year's training is the most reactionary which can be conceived. I ask whether it has been withdrawn. In the opinion of the Departmental Committee,
the normal period of training of young persons who have passed the first school examination should still be two years, and to this period at least one year must be devoted to professional training. For any of those who have passed the second school examination it will be open to the training colleges to provide courses wholly consisting of one year's professional training.
has that been withdrawn? Is it the policy of the Board to accept the recommendation made by the Committee to which the noble Lord referred, consisting of representatives of the Universities and training colleges? Is it the policy of the Board to accept those decisions? Have they abandoned finally and definitely their desire for a one year's training? Every educational association throughout the country has condemned the proposal. The Headmistresses Association, the representatives of training colleges, assistants and principals, the National Union of Teachers, have all utterly condemned the proposal. And I hope their opposition will have the effect of inducing the Board to definitely and specifically abandon this policy in the elementary schools.
May I again point out that we on this side, looking at it from a political aspect, say that this is another example of class legislation. We say quite definitely that the qualifications, the length of training, and the academic standard for children in the elementary schools, should be as high as that in the secondary schools. The noble Lord talks about the unification of the educational system. The fundamental necessity for unifying our educational system is to have a uniform standard of qualification and training for all teachers in the various grades of schools. If you get equality of training and academic standards, not necessarily in the same subjects, for teachers of all grades of schools it will make the flow much easier from one grade to another, and much easier to co-ordinate the whole educational system. But I am afraid the policy enunciated by the noble Lord will not lead to that unless this policy is definitely withdrawn.
I would like to call attention to two other matters. The President of the Board referred to the rural areas and stated that there was some discussion going on between the county councils and representatives of the Board as to the qualifications of teachers in rural areas; and he said how vital it was to get the best kind of teacher with as liberal an education and as extensive a training as the teacher in the urban area. With that view we thoroughly agree. I do not believe there is a single educationist who does not believe that teachers in rural areas should be at least as well qualified
as teachers in town areas. That was the statement of the Noble Lord. But what do we find in his policy? His policy does not bear out the high sentiments of his speech. The Board has now agreed to what is called a supplementary handicraft teacher in the rural areas. I shall be pleased to be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that the supplementary handicraft teacher is to be 18 years of age and to have had some job or other—mending doors, I suppose, or putting locks right, or planing a little, and sawing a little. I do not know that it is necessary for him to be vaccinated. I believe there was a qualification for the ordinary supplementary teacher that he had to be 18 years of age and had to be vaccinated. In this instance I do not know that even vaccination is insisted upon.
Here is the supplementary handicraft teacher in the rural area. Is that in line with the fine sentiments expressed by the Noble Lord this afternoon with regard to the quality of the teachers required in rural areas? We are against the employment of supplementary handicraft teachers with no teaching experience or training, no academic equipment, even without craftsmanship and craft experience. Everyone who has at heart the interests of the rural child ought to resist that proposal. I am hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say that, having regard to the circumstances, the Board will withdraw the proposal, and will insist that the handicraft teacher shall be of an equal standard of qualification to the handicraft teacher in the town centres. Where are such teachers to get their training from? They may be isolated in one or two handicraft centres. I confess that I can hardly believe that the President knows, in some details, the policy of his own Department. I know that it is difficult to get these handicraft teachers, but this is not the way to meet the demand. This is a reactionary method. It will fill the schools with unqualified teachers, and instead of helping the rural child will be a hindrance to his development.
I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary dissents from that statement. I implore her to consider the problem in a far broader way than has been done so far. I want not merely surveys by the
Board of the needs of education for rural children, but I would like to see a Commission or public Committee set up under the auspices of the Board in order to explore the whole position with regard to education and its relationship to rural industry and rural life. A short time ago I met a distinguished man from Denmark. I said to him, "I understand that your agricultural industry has been built up and has succeeded because of your application of technical rural education." He replied, "No, the foundation of the rural revival of Denmark on its educational side was a liberalising, spiritual kind of education that quickened the people of Denmark to take a wider interest in life's activities." He was an authority, head of a people's school there. He told me that, economically speaking, the wide and liberal education, with its points of contact with rural problems and life, had resulted in great economic advancement for the rural areas of Denmark. I would like to see a thorough inquiry into the whole of the problem of the rural areas and the urban districts of our country.
That leads me to my last point. I have been looking at the figures relating to the provision for technical education in this country, and I must confess that I was startled at the meagreness of the provision. I did not realise before that the number of local authorities which are providing junior technical schools is only 38, and that the students, both boys and girls, attending the junior technical schools, numbered only about 12,000. When I consider the type of these schools, I am amazed at the lack of provision for the varying needs of an industrial nation. I ask the Board to develop the junior technical schools, but not to develop them as blind alley schools. I know of one school that is mentioned in the interesting Report which I have in my mind. As I shall not mention its name, I can speak freely about it. That junior technical school is merely a glorified manual training centre. It has a very small outlet to industry and no outlet to a senior technical school. It is a great mistake to have junior technical schools with dead ends. There ought to be provision for junior technical students, not only to go out into the wider field of industry, but, if they fail to get skilled jobs, to develop their education still further along tech-
nical lines in senior technical schools, and eventually to go to the universities. There ought to be some co-ordination, not only between junior and senior technical schools, but between them and the ordinary secondary schools of the country. I find that the Board in its Report says, in relation to the provision of technical, education:
The story of actual progress since 1918 is not impressive.
The Report goes on to give some account of the buildings. I do not know how the Board can expect education to be carried on efficiently under such conditions. I find a reference to a room, measuring about 10 feet square, for the principal to carry on his work; and mention made that there is no common room for the teaching staff, no room for the use of students, no rest room for the female staff, and a statement that the sanitary arrangements are much below standard. The Report also states, in reference to another school, that dressmaking is carried out on woodwork benches, and plumbing taught in a cellar; and a lecture room in another school is so badly lighted that it is impossible to see anything on the blackboard. That gives an idea of some of the terrible conditions under which some junior technical schools are working. Educationists hold that education should be as manifold as the needs of life and of society. I may be criticised for this, but I am not wedded to what has been called a literary and liberal education, in the narrow sense of the word. I am not afraid of the word "vocational," though I would not mind if that title were taken off the new Regulations in order to meet people's slight objections. I am not afraid of education that will eventually lead to vocation. I want education to dignify life and work.
I think there is a growing movement in favour of this application of new ideas. My main criticism against the Board is that, instead of organising this new movement, instead of encouraging it in a great constructive effort, the energies of the Board are now directed to repression and curtailment. It is not an activity which is getting value for money, but an activity which is meant merely to cut down and to save pounds, shillings and pence. It is an unwise
economy. I do not want to spend more money merely for the sake of spending more money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Most of you do!"] No. We want to spend more money in order to remedy the evils which exist—in the large number of bad schools, the lack of provision for secondary education (a miserable provision for 12,000 students in the, junior technical schools of a great industrial nation). Will any hon. Member say that that is an adequate provision for an industrial nation like ours? Mr. Filene, a business man of Boston, sent me a book called "The Way Out." In that book he says:
We want to Fordise America. Here we are in this country. We have been very fortunate in having an internal market in which we can sell our goods.
Speaking as a great business man in Boston, the head of a tremendous concern there, he says also:
More and more, we in America will be thrown on the world market to compete with other nations, and how are we going to meet that competition. There is one way in which it can be met, and that is by improving our technical equipment and securing progress and greater productivity through technical and scientific application.
If that is the outlook of the American business men, surely we may say that if this nation is to provide a standard of life for its people, it cannot afford to curtail education. Our material, mental and spiritual prosperity rests upon an education which is freely watered, not merely by nice words, but by cash from the Board of Education, in order that the education authorities may carry out a progressive policy.

Sir THOMAS DAVIES: A good deal has been said about education generally in rural districts and we have also heard something about central schools in rural districts. As an old schoolmaster, a member for many years of an education committee and chairman of a county education committee, I should like to point out what our experience has been and what drawbacks we have encountered, in carrying out a system which we would like to see proving efficient, of secondary education and continuing education for children after the age of eleven. In my own county of Gloucestershire we have something like 400 schools, and of these about 100 have an average attendance of less than 50.
Furthermore 100 out of the 400 are council or provided schools and 300 are voluntary or non-provided schools. In many parts of the Cotswold Hills and in Wiltshire and other places, we find small schools of 30, 35 and 40. The mistress of that school has to take the whole of the sixth standard and also has to take the infant classes, and the work of the mistress of these small schools is far superior to anything that is done in the London schools.
Anyone who knows these schools will admit that the mistress of a small country school does work which entitles her to a big salary, but she does not get it. I have often thought that the best salaries ought to be paid in the smaller schools. That may seem a strange thing to say, but that is my experience. The children are sent to school at an early age. The parents are not bound to send them until they are six, but most parents like to send them as soon as they are four or five in order to get them out of the way, as they say, and to keep them out of mischief. The result is that in these small schools which are situated far apart from each other, you find young children and also children from 11 to 14—some of them big boys—in charge of a mistress, and it is an unsuitable thing to have a great lump of a lad under the care of a mistress who has so much other work to do. While she is teaching needlework, which she has to do on certain afternoons, she is at her wits' end to know what to do with these big lads. Very often they are put down to copy writing or to do some drawing without any supervision, because the supervision cannot be given.
It will be said at once, "Why in the world do you not send these bigger children to the central school?" Here is the difficulty. Nearly all these small schools on the hills are voluntary schools. Some of them are Church schools. All honour to the Church people for building them and maintaining them. Do not think for a single moment that I am running them down, because I think they have done magnificent service in the past, when the cause of education was not quite so popular as it is to-day. They took it up in those days, and the result is the existence to-day of these voluntary schools. Now not one penny-piece of public money can be used on these schools to improve them or examine them. I ask
the Committee, having this in mind, to consider a case where there are five parishes together—four parishes situated round a central parish. Now a central school does not mean a school which is central in the sense of giving a better education, but a school which is situated in the centre of a district. If they are all voluntary schools, even though the children can all get easily to a particular school, how are you going to put that particular central school into such a condition that the bigger children from the other schools can go there? It means £ s. d. You cannot ask the central parish to do it, because the central parish says, "We have already enough school accommodation in this parish for our own children; why should we have to pay for the education of other children outside our own parish?" Again, each one of the surrounding parishes will say, "We have sufficient accommodation in our own schools for our own children, and why should we spend any more money?" If you ask the county council, they will reply, "We have no power."
That is one of the difficulties in country districts, and, while we are anxious and more than willing to have these schools established for the better education of children between 11 and 14, the present dual school system practically prevents that being done except in favourable places here and there. You may get a wealthy townsman, who has, perhaps, bought up the estate of an impoverished landowner, and who will provide a school. Sometimes—not very often I am sorry to say—such a man will follow the example of America, where they spend money like water on education, from voluntary as well as public sources, and will put up a brand-new school, probably much larger than is wanted for his own place. That is a perfect God-send, but such cases are exceptional. One of the difficulties which I have never heard discussed in the House of Commons is what is to be done in our rural districts to give rural boys and girls an equal chance with the boys and girls in large centres of population. As long as you have the dual school system, I do not see how it is possible to get over those difficulties. As the law stands, if there is a Church school or a Roman Catholic school—and the Roman Catholics have made even more sacrifices in this respect than the Church people, and that is saying a great deal—even though that school has
only an average attendance of 30, the Board of Education cannot close it. Nobody can close it provided it is being properly conducted and the instruction given in it is all right. You cannot close that school and send the children to a bigger central school, because the law does not permit it.
Another difficulty in regard to the dual system of schools is that, whereas we talk of a national system of education, in fact a national system ought to mean that teacherships in those schools should be open to all the nation. I speak as a strong Conservative and a strong Churchman, but I say that my Nonconformist neighbours have a grievance, and it is this. All these Church schools, which are far and away the most numerous in practically every agricultural district of England and Wales, can be manned by Churchpeople, but, at the same time, these Churchpeople have also the right to be appointed in the council schools. The Nonconformist has merely got the chance of going into a council school and has not the chance of a teachership in a voluntary school. Therefore, I say that under the dual system one particular class is better off in this respect than the others. I myself believe strongly that if you are to have religious instruction at all, that instruction should be given by people who are qualified to give it and who believe in it. I am sorry to say in many of our schools, not only council schools but Church schools, religious teaching is looked upon as being of the least value in the school instead of being of the greatest value.
We want a reformation in that respect and we want a system which in some way or other will give real denominational teaching to those who want it, whether it is Nonconformist, Church of England or Catholic. As long as the religious scruples of the parents are observed and the teaching which they wish to have given, is given in some shape or form, I think by getting rid of the religious difficulty you would solve a large part of the problem. There is no use in appointing committees to consider better education in our country districts as long as the dual system goes on and as long as the voluntary school managements,
while responsible for their own schools, have, equally with the rest of the population, to pay rates for the council schools. They are paying rates twice over. With regard to the training of teachers, as an old schoolmaster myself and chairman of the county authority in Gloucestershire, which is one of the biggest in England and Wales, I am perfectly convinced that while you may have a few teachers who are not up to the mark the professional standard is high. What profession is there in which somebody or other is not up to the mark? Even on the Bench of Bishops some are better than others; and that applies also to the Treasury Bench.

Mr. HANNON: They are all equal.

Sir T. DAVIES: They may be all equal in one sense, but they are not all equal in brain power, and the Lord never made us all equal in that respect. But we go on in our elementary schools as if people were all equal, as if all the teachers were equal and all the children were equal in brain power. Nothing of the kind As I have said before, I am not at all in love with the system of segregating our prospective teachers from other classes of students in training colleges, where they talk about nothing else but teaching and become perfectly neurotic. What they do is to talk about their grievances. To-day, teachers are paid decent salaries. They are not overpaid—I will not say they are even generously paid—but they are decently paid, and can look forward to decent pensions. We put prospective teachers into these training colleges, where they are in a narrow groove and where they get the idea that all they have to do is to go to a particular school and, as far as possible, teach all the children in it alike, whether they are the children in the smallest country schools or the children in the biggest London schools. That is a mistake. I would send every one who is going to become a teacher to one of the University towns, to mix with those who are going to be lawyers or doctors or parsons or scientists or engineers, and then they would know that they are not quite such "little tin gods" as they may think they are.
We want specialists in elementary schools quite as much as we want them anywhere else. You cannot take a
teacher out of the City of London and send him or her down to the Cotswold Hills and say, "Here is your school. Take a particular interest in gardening and have a gardening class in the afternoons." That is impossible if the teacher does not know a swede from a turnip. We are doing our best in the country districts, through the county councils, backed by the Ministry of Agriculture, to establish small holdings and cottage holdings and, in my part of the country, large market gardens. What is the technical education wanted for this purpose? You do not want the sort of technical education which is required in Leeds where they make cloth, or in Birmingham where they turn out machinery. You want technical instruction in such things as pruning, grafting and planting. You want to teach them to do something more on the allotments than the growing of the ordinary potatoes and cabbages. You want to encourage them to go in for such things as asparagus, black currants, rhubarb and those things which pay remarkably well. How in the world can you expect a master or mistress from a training college in the city to go into the country districts and give that kind of instruction?
One of the first things you want to do to improve the education of the country districts is to have men and women teachers who also have a thoroughly good literary education. I want the standard of the teacher to be raised. I want the teacher to have such an education that he or she can be on terms of absolute equality with the squire or the doctor or the parson. I want the teacher in the rural districts to be high in the social scale. You will not get it under the present system.
Let me take another point. Do remember that what this country wants to-day, as far as its industrial position and the happiness of the people are concerned, is to develop the raw material which exists in agricultural children, quite as much as in any other section of the community. While it is there untaught, it is the same as the raw material in the ground, iron, gold or silver. What we want to do is to develop that raw material from amongst the children. Give them all, as far as possible,
a good general education, but pick out the best and the brightest and give them a thoroughly good education. We are not talking about this simply for the sake of talking. Within five miles of where I live we are going to have on Saturday next an address from Sir Michael Sadler, one of the best educationists in the country. It is one of the most unwise things the Board of Education did to let that man go. If ever there was a man who has done well for education it was Sir Michael Sadler. His reports on schools abroad was a wonderful work. He is going to give an address to whom? To about 50 or 60 boys, sons of the poorest parents in Gloucestershire. Owing to the great liberality of the family of Wills, of the Imperial Tobacco Company, who have so much money, I was going to say, that they do not know what to do with it—this particular Mr. Wills has bought an enormous mansion situated in one of the most beautiful places in England, and is giving it over to the education of the boys of the poorest people in Gloucestershire. They must be the sons of working people or he will not take them in at all. He boards, lodges and feeds them, and gives them pocket money. The proportion of those children from this school who go to the universities beats any secondary school in Gloucestershire. That shows there is ability in the poorest of the poor in this country.
7.0 P.M.
What we want to do is to provide such an education that will give the average boy a good average education. Do not think education stops when the boy is 14 and leaves school. He has just had the A B C of his education. We want to end that deadening that we used to have—4s. for passing in reading, 4s. for passing in writing, 4s. for passing in arithmetic. If it was a very good school you had 3s. a head extra, if it was a good school 28. a head extra; if it was a middling school 1s. a head extra; and if it was a poor school nothing extra. The poor schoolmaster depended very largely on that. He drilled, round and round, reading, writing and arithmetic into the children until the poor beggars could not take in anything else. What is the consequence of that? Those children 30 or 40 years ago, when they left school, hated the sight of a book. Nowadays, that kind of examination being swept away, you are getting the system estab-
lished by Miss Mason which proved to demonstration in Northumberland and Westmorland that the children of the poor, when they were taught in the right way, showed wonderful aptitude for good English composition, and, having plenty of books to read, the whole position has been changed. We have so educated, not only the children, but the parents, in other parts of the country, that we have free libraries established in practically every parish in Gloucestershire through the Carnegie Trust, in addition to which we make a small collection out of our rates. Those books are looked forward to by the parents to-day with quite as much interest as by the children themselves. That I look upon as doing away with the old system of examination, and having a much superior system.
Some of us are optimistic to-day. I am myself. Looking back 30, 40, or 50 years ago, as I can, I can assure you the advance in education is little short of marvellous. Apart from the things I have mentioned and the alteration of this duai system, while preserving the religious views of the parents and giving them every opportunity of being taught in the schools, I want to see one system of schools throughout the country. I want to see such a well-educated body of teachers that, a teacher having once started, nothing need stop him getting to be head of the biggest college in the Kingdom. I want the Board of Education, when they have smart schoolmasters, to make them inspectors. We are told that the old poacher makes the best game-keeper. I want to raise the level of teachers all over the country, and I have great faith that the future of this country will be very much better than the past. There is such a thing as wasted money. If you think that by spending £2 on a boy instead of £1 you are going to make him twice as smart you are wrong. You are going to do nothing of the sort. Spend money, but do not do it foolishly. To spend money does not mean you get better education. Before the school board days in Scotland you had the best system of teachers in the world and the best scholars. They did not pay their masters much in those days. To-day our march is upwards. If some of those reforms I have pointed out could be carried, and some of the difficulties swept out of
the way, and we could start right forward, we should be the foremost nation in the world as we have been in the past.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I am sure everyone has listened with interest to the remarks of the last speaker. I am wondering how sad he must be, with all those ideas and all those great wishes to further education, to have a Front Bench from whom it is absolutely impossible to get what he wants. It is perfectly true that if you spend £2 instead of £1 on a child's education you will not necessarily get twice as much value, but you will give twice the opportunity to him. I listened with great interest to the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord E. Percy), and, had I not been in touch with the local education authorities and teachers and parents who are deeply interested in education, and had I not known what is going on up and down the country, I should have been very delighted indeed at the remarks and with the principles which he enunciated. How splendid the words, but how deplorable the deeds! When we turn to Command Paper 2688, we learn that the local education authorities have reduced their November forecast by nearly £1,500,000. The Board has still further reduced those revised Estimates by £976,000, and in the latter reduction elementary Estimates have suffered by £752,000, of which £266,000 is on salaries alone. It is sometimes said you can spend less money on salaries without harming education. It is impossible for this to be done. I put it to hon. Members if they heard of the schools which their children attend, say Eton and Harrow, having such wholesale reductions would they not be alarmed? We, too, whose children are dependent on our elementary schools, are thoroughly alarmed at this wholesale reduction in the cost of running our schools. If you are going to reduce the amount of money spent on teachers' salaries, you are either going to reduce the number of teachers or their qualifications.
I want to say how glad I was to hear an hon. Member say that you cannot possibly reduce the number of teachers without injuring tremendously the sort of education given, and that, because schools happen to be elementary schools, that is no reason why a teacher should be less qualified. In fact, my whole
experience is that the more difficult the type of child you are teaching the more skill is required. I was also glad to hear a protest against that idea that the older the child the lees number in a class. I think if you ask any practical teacher you will learn that in their experience it is in the lower standards and the infant schools that you require a smaller number of children in the class with present-day methods particularly. I want to get the numbers right down. An hon. Member opposite showed great dissatisfaction with the remark made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) about 13 schools with one teacher for 10 children. I know a school where there is one teacher to seven children. If that be best for that type of school it is also best for the type of school to which we send our children. The whole idea of the Board of Education should be not to encourage education authorities to increase the number of children in a class, but to encourage, nay to press them to decrease the number of children which any teacher has to teach.
I was very interested indeed in hearing the Member who last spoke refer to rural schools, and I am glad to hear some on his side put in a plea for the single-teacher school, that is, where the teacher is responsible for the whole of the children in a school. There are thousands of those schools about. I could not help thinking of how the Noble Lady (Duchess of Atholl) would like the job of going to school in the morning and facing 30 children alone, the youngest five and the oldest 14, and having to be responsible, not only for keeping those children quiet, but also for teaching them a dozen subjects. It cannot be done. Surely we should concentrate on getting more and more teachers and fewer and fewer children in each class for them to have to teach.
I was also very glad to hear the Noble Lord express a wish for highly capable teachers in the rural schools, and he even mentioned the word "culture" in this connection. In my own experience, and in this year, before coming to this House, I had a young pupil teacher, a girl with ideals, who had deliberately chosen teaching as her vocation, who was keen on her job, and anxious to render service, not merely for what she could get out of her profession, but more for what she could put into it, who, having
studied very hard, applied for admission to a training college, but was turned down. That is the third case in three years of pupil teachers turned down that I have had brought to my notice, and I want to suggest that there is something very wrong, that we should have a great number of young teachers, at the very beginning of their career, full of enthusiasm and ideals, meeting with that great blow, just when they are going to leave their pupil teachership and get training at a college, of finding they are not wanted. The result is, of course, that as they cannot be without occupation, but must earn something, they are sent back to school as supplementary teachers. I hope an endeavour will be made to make it possible for all those teachers to get into a training college, but it is very difficult to square facts like those that I have just mentioned with the ideals enunciated in that connection by the President of the Board of Education.
Then, again, I want to refer to a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough with regard to handicraft instructors. I suspect that the policy which is being followed is based upon the idea that the instructor may be merely a person who may have some connection, more or less remote, with handicrafts but no teacher, and who can now be employed through a school as a supplementary handicraft instructor. I would suggest that it is based upon the fallacy that anyone who knows how to do a job can also train children for that job. That is an absolute fallacy. With regard to handicrafts, nothing requires greater skill to teach. Handicrafts is not a subject, but a method, and there is a very great difference indeed. I want to stress that point. The hon. Member who last spoke will, I think, bear me out when I say that in our rural schools, if we are going to give the sort of education which the Minister says he desires, handicraft instructors in woodwork, gardening, and other subjects too are absolutely imperative. I know of no better method of giving a child the opportunity of really getting the most out of school than through gardening, woodwork, and so on, not as ends in themselves, but as, so to speak, the sugar on the pill.
I have known cases of boys particularly whose interest in school has been absolutely non-existent until they have been put into the gardening class. At one school in my own experience I deliberately chose the boys for the gardening class from the "duds" among the other boys, boys with whom the average teacher would say it was practically impossible to do anything at all. Reading, writing, arithmetic, composition, drawing—in all these subjects, hopeless. But after a short time in the garden, he finds that such things are essential to successful gardening, and of his own volition, he desires to read in order to discover from the text book given him why his onions are drooping, or his potatoes a failure. He realises that there is something in arithmetic when his rows of parsnips are all over the place, because he failed to measure accurately. That applies to all subjects, reading, writing, arithmetic, and so on. Therefore, I submit that it is a tragedy when you find a path being made into the rural schools for the type of person which seems to be suggested by this type of handicraft instructor who has no idea whatever of teaching. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Minister, before the Debate finishes, that this is not so.
Again, I am alarmed at the idea of the one-year training for teachers. We have had a plea this afternoon for culture, and the hon. Member who last spoke mentioned how essential it is for teachers not to be segregated. I hope that in the near future we shall not have training colleges where those who are trained for a profession shall be thrown into an atmosphere in which teachers only are trained. The atmosphere in which teachers are trained cannot be too wide, and how can we possibly think we are on the way towards that end when we find that this great economy stunt is being practised more and more in education every day? Economy in education is a three-fold tragedy. It is a tragedy for the child, in the first place. Millions of children get the best time of their lives at school, and it is true that the school, as some of the older people know it, is not at all the same sort of place with which we who know the schools of to-day are acquainted. Whereas it used to be that parents had the greatest difficulty in the world in get-
ting their children to school, now a teacher often has a complaint from a parent that a child cannot be kept at home, and away from school.
In my 26 years' experience in schools, I have never known the teachers as a whole to be so devoted, and enthusiastic, and keen about their job as they are now. We all know cases of many teachers, not exceptions at all, but average teachers, to whom nothing is too onerous, who do hours and hours of work over and above what they are paid for, and who never question it at all. So long as it is for the good of the children, they never question their hours. Yet here they meet with this rebuff in the present policy of economy. Do not let us forget, either, that the nation will lose tremendously in the long run if this policy is carried out to its logical conclusion. I ask hon. Members opposite (who are not present at the moment) to drop the question of party loyalty. This is a perfectly serious Amendment, and we wish to register our protest against the policy of economy in education. I ask hon. Members opposite to drop their party loyalty for once, and to deal with this question, not merely as people carrying a particular political ticket, but to think of it as parents who are keen to give children the best possible chance. Loyalty to our children is much more important and infinitely more sacred than loyalty to our party.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I want to take up a remark that fell from the hon. Member for Cirencester (Sir T. Davies), who said that what we wanted was one system of education. I was very glad to hear that from an hon. Member on the other side of the House. It is really a fundamental defect of our present educational system that there is such a tremendous difference between the publicly-supported type of education and the education of the private schools. It does, in effect, divide the nation into two classes more effectually than any other single measure could possibly do. I am quite sure the Noble Lady who represents the Board of Education does not desire it, but she must agree that the difference between the educational outlook of those who attend what are called the public schools and those who attend what are called the elementary schools does make them have quite a different point of view, and the real place at which to begin the reconciliation of the people
of this country, if it be really desired, is in the schools, and not afterwards, when people are separated by years of different education. These two different systems that we have are shown, perhaps, most clearly when we come to realise the differences that there are between the education of children belonging to the classes whose parents can afford to send them to the public schools, which are, of course, expensive schools, and those whose parents send them to the educational authority-supported schools, and who have to take advantage of what opportunities are provided there.
When one realises that the total number of children who have scholarships and free places in secondary schools, and institutions of a secondary type, including universities, in the whole of London, with its 800,000 children, is only 15,777, it is really a terrible comment on conditions existing at the present time; and when one realises that in a district like that which I represent, which is a very poor district, out of a child population of 36,000 between the ages of five and 14 years, there are only 400 children holding free places in secondary schools, one realises that that is a very low percentage indeed, and in fact, though not in desire and not in intention, perhaps, that is a very terrible class division of the population beginning in the schools. If you will take the calculation still a little further, you will find that when the children are leaving the elementary schools at the age of 14, those in the public schools are just beginning the most important part of their education. Take London. At any time there are 75,000 boys and girls between 13 and 14 attending the elementary schools. A year later that number has not remained the same, but has gone down to 50,000 in all kinds of educational institutions. A year later that 50,000 has gone down to 25,000. Six years later the figure has fallen to 10,000.
What it amounts to is this: The older the elementary school children get, the more and more they fall away. While it is said—although it is not true, except very roughly—that the education of all kinds of children up to the age of 14 is, roughly, the same, from the age of 14 onwards education diverges more and more and stamps that unfortunate difference of class that some of us deplore. Perhaps the Noble Lord the President
of the Board of Education may not think it so, but it is so, and this unfortunate difference of class is worked into the minds and fibre of the children of this country. A fortunate child, who goes to Eton and Harrow, has a different mental outlook, quite different from that of the child who is going to work at the age of 14, and who gets what further education he or she can by attending evening institutes. I hope very much, by the way, that these evening institutes and educational institutions of that character will be improved, increased and strengthened. They do not, however, supply the place of a really satisfactory and a really good education.
Realise that in many districts of London there are only about 2 per cent. of the child population attending secondary schools, and hon. Members should feel that that is a figure really which calls for a good deal of alteration. I do not wish to be too utopian in this matter. I know perfectly well that it is quite impossible to radically and immediately change all social conditions and these very terrible divergencies and divisions. But I do think we might equalise the conditions in the secondary schools in the different districts of London. Take, for instance, the district of Lewisham. There are 18.8 per cent. of children attending the secondary schools. In Southwark district, part of which I represent, the figure is 2.3. In Shoreditch the figure is 1.3; in Hampstead 14.5, and in Wandsworth 15.7. There are these divergencies in London. It is well known that these school children are of the type that attend the elementary schools. I do suggest that an endeavour should be made to see that in, say, places like Southwark, Shoreditch, Stoke Newington and other areas of the sort, which have a very low percentage attendance in the secondary schools, that condition ought to be remedied as far as possible at the present time. There is really no occasion for this very serious difference. I should like to go very much further. I want to have one system of education in this country in every sense of the word. I want to see every school in this country open to every child. I do not now exempt from that the schools which are called public schools, or the universities.
In London, following on the Education Act, 1918, a scheme was prepared which actually brought into the sphere of the education authority in London any educational establishment of any importance, I think, with the exception of some six schools. I believe that if the Board of Education had themselves either enough imagination or prevision in this matter, they might bring a large proportion of what are called the public schools inside the ambit of the education authorities and make them available to the children from the elementary schools. Take, for instance, that great school, Eton. It has a great political tradition. A large proportion of the boys who attend that school definitely intend to make politics their career. At the present time there are, for all practical purposes, only two political parties in the country—the Conservative party and the Labour party. There are very few connected with the Labour party who are able to send their boys to Eton, and there are very few boys either in that school who are making towards the Labour party, though probably there are a great many probably making for the Conservative party. I was glad the other night when I was there to see that some of them were not quite so satisfied with the Conservative party as some hon. Members opposite would wish. I should like to see the advantages—such as they are—and there are advantages at Eton—open to any child coming from the schools of Southwark or Shoreditch. The principle of scholarship places and free places, in my judgment, and in the judgment of a large number of other Members of the Labour party who are interested in education, should be extended to schools like Eton, Harrow, and Winchester. If there are any advantages about those schools, they require to be shared in a national pool.
There is another thing which has not been mentioned to-day, although it has been referred to on other occasions. I frequently noticed during the years I was a medical inspector of schools that teachers were a very, very lonely tribe. Teachers live very lonely lives. They go to their schools. They do their work. They go away again and live in their rather isolated little lodgings or little houses, and really never come into contact with the universities, with other
teachers, or with people leading wider lives. I do think the Board of Education might make some provision to try to link up the teachers in London and in the big places in the country with the university institutions in the country and make them participators, to a certain extent, in the university life. I recognise it is not at all an easy thing to accomplish.
There is another matter which I wish to mention, that is the question of research. It seems to me that if this were linked up with the educational institutions of the country, if our schools were linked together, the teachers with the universities, and the universities were really linked up with research scholarship, for which at present there is no adequate provision in this country, it would be well. We should then have the opportunity of firing the imagination of the child, and opening up for the child the possibility of showing it more of the greatness and interest of the world. I must confess that I do not share the optimism of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). That is not because I have not known the Noble Lord longer than he has, because we have had experience of the Noble Lord when we served on the London County Council with him, and when we were all members of the Education Committee. The Noble Lord always struggles very hard to be a Progressive. But he has the unfortunate condition of his upbringing and origin always dragging him back into reaction. He cannot help it. One only regrets it and is sorry that that should be so. The Noble Lord cannot possibly be progressive however he tries. I must confess that I think the Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has always seemed to be very much more progressive than her Parliamentary chief. But I want to say that we require greater imagination in some of these things, although I do not hope for it from the Noble Lord. I realize, as has been mentioned several times in this Debate to-day, that there is a necessity for a very much better system of education than we have at the present time in order to equip our democracy to tackle the tasks of our national life.
We are no longer a nation ruled by a governing class. We are no longer a nation ruled by a people equipped, however effectively up to a certain limit, at
the public school. We are a nation ruled by an immense, democratic many-headed majority; and unless that democracy is really well-educated, in the best sense of the word, we shall not be able to solve the tasks that are coming before us. In the immediate future our tasks are going to be enormous. Our tasks are political tasks, and are difficulties of the mind. Foreign policy is a question of understanding and misunderstanding. Our Empire policy is the same thing. It is really pathetic at the present time to see the rather fettered mind of the Conservative party struggling to express itself in an Empire policy. In home affairs too. Take, for instance, the coal dispute. The whole difficulty of the coal dispute is misunderstanding between the one side and the other, a difficulty accentuated by the education of the two sides, both of them equally badly educated, with the balance against the mineowners who seem to be worse educated than any other class in the community so far as I can make out. But in any case what we want is more and more education and better education. You cannot get that unless you have a really national system which shall take in all the schools and all educational institutions and pool all our educational resources.
For my own part, I shall be glad if we can get a real improvement in the general health in the population. A general improvement in the standard has been going on, although there has been reaction in the last year or two, though probably we may be able to get over that. If we can get a real high level of health, and a really national system of education which will put all to a certain extent on the same level, then, I believe, we shall be able to solve the problems that are before us. Let me emphasise once again this point: That if we are to have in our nation the common mind; if we are to have the possibility of all co-operating together—and people are always talking about that—you must have a common background in the mind of the children of the nation. You cannot have that common background in the mind of the children of the nation unless there is a common school experience through which they have passed. If there are advantages in the great public schools by all means let them have the benefit of them. Do not confine those advantages to the children of the rich.
Let us by scholarships and free places open up the mind of the children of the poor. If we do that we shall have, not a complete national system, but at least the beginning of a national system on education.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): Captain Bourne.

Captain BOURNE: rose—

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Ought there not to be a Scottish Member called upon? The Scottish Estimates depend entirely upon these Estimates, and we protest because no Scottish Member has taken part in this discussion. Our educational expenditure is dependent upon that of England. I ask you whether a Scottish Member ought not to be called upon?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not make a speech. This is a matter which depends upon successive Members catching the eye of the occupant of the Chair.

Captain BOURNE: I think those who have been present during to-day's Debate on education and recall other Debates on the same subject will agree that the discussion to-day has dealt much more with education itself than with the dry bones of the subject. Debates in this House are apt to be so taken up with details as to floor space, teachers' salaries and other things that we lose sight of the education itself and forget to ask what is the education we are giving, what it is designed for and whether it is really the best type of education in the interest of all classes of the community. The hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. H. Guest) has made a plea for wider education, and I should like to support that, because I feel it is most important nowadays to teach people to use their brains. It is true that all have not equal brains, but I am sometimes very doubtful whether the present system of education, in either the public or in the elementary schools, is really designed to help us to make the best use of our brains—to teach people to think which, after all, is more important than learning.
In my belief what one learns does not very much matter, but to learn how to learn and to learn how to use the information one gathers is of the utmost
importance and, once acquired, will stand by a man throughout life. Those who have had the good fortune to meet people who were educated at public schools many years ago, where they received an education mostly classical, admittedly narrow, and, in the light of our present ideas, very limited, must have been struck with the thoroughness of that education, the way those people remembered the things they had learned in their boyhood days and the very great power they acquired of using their brains. It has seemed to me when I have been brought into contact with people older than myself that their education when at school must have been more thorough and have stood them in far better stead in after-life than mine has done. I think it would be well worth the consideration of my Noble Friend to see whether our present curriculum, our present system, is really the best for getting the most out of the brains of those who go through it. Sometimes I think the tendency of modern education is to teach too many subjects and to teach none of them thoroughly, so that when boys or girls go out into after-life they find that for their own protection and to make their own way in the world they have to sit down and learn something thoroughly, if only their own trade. As the result of the education they have had they do not always find it easy to give in after-life the concentrated attention to their job which is necessary to make a real success of their lives.
Another point which is also worth attention is whether our education, in many of its branches, is that most adapted to the needs of the nation. It struck me very much during my time at Oxford that very few of my contemporaries intended to take up afterwards what I may call productive work. The tendency of most of them was to go into the Civil Service, to go into merchants' offices; very few whom I knew intended to take up a career which would mean contact with all classes of their fellow-creatures and the production of something for the use of the community. That tendency appears to be general and is not confined to the great universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Whether it is a result of our modern education, I do not know, though I rather suspect it is, but there
is a tendency to look at the clerical side of life as being of more importance and better than the manual, to look upon a man who does useful work in an office as nobler and greater than a man who labours with his hands and produces things which are essential to the community. I think we ought to show a little more bias towards the productive side and make people realise that the man who produces something is doing a greater national service than the man who merely sits and writes. We want to feel that there is no snobbishness in their relations one to the other, but that all are bound together and doing useful work for the nation, and that the man who takes up a productive career is a great asset to this country. Especially do we want to encourage those whose brains are above the average to go in for a productive career rather than, shall I say, a purely sedentary career. I do not wish to weary the Committee, but I did wish to make these few points.

Miss LAWRENCE: As a preliminary to my other remarks I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the grants for higher education are down this year by £532,500. Local authorities were very much frightened as to what that might mean. The Memorandum states that
On the other hand, exceptional relief, amounting to rather more than £500,000, is obtained in this year's estimate by a retardation of the instalments of grants to local authorities for higher education.
That is an entirely new departure in budgeting I know that the financial year and the education year do not coincide, and that, in consequence, some part of the Budget of one year is always made up of the grants for another calendar year; but this is a transfer from one Budget year to another. The money which in normal circumstances would be spent in these estimates has been deferred to next year. The retardation of payments is a device well known in private life. Many people who find money a little tight have an ingenious expedient of paying a little on account; but this is a quite new financial proceeding for this House to adopt. If it became general, any Chancellor of the Exchequer might make his Budget look extremely pretty by deferring 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 per cent. of what should properly be paid in one year to the following year; but it would be a
very bad financial proceeding If other Ministers imitated the President of the Board of Education, Parliament would be pledging the revenues of the following year, which, I think, is an altogether unheard-of financial expedient. I thought I ought to draw attention to this novelty in finance.
Now I come to what I rose to say. The Board of Education has been engaged in a plan, and have been partially successful, to reduce the number and the qualifications of the teachers. I know that when the Board of Education writes to a local authority it merely asks for a general reduction in the Estimates, but the Board knows better than anybody else how predominant is the cost of teachers' salaries in educational expenditure. Taking the average cost of elementary education for children at £233 per head, £166 represents payment to teachers. One cannot possibly make a great reduction in the items which go to make up the remaining £66 and leave untouched the £166. With the reduction in the numbers of teachers the Minister has already achieved an appreciable success, though the point was a little obscured by his taking the date 25th March for the purposes of comparison. The truth of the matter is this: During the election the Minister made most beautiful speeches about education, and repeated those speeches for six months or more after the election, and during that time local authorities believed that the great doctrine of continuity held sway. Local authorities went on increasing their staffs until 30th September, 1925. The Minister of Education changed his attitude about that time. Staffs had increased from the 31st December, 1923, up to 165,997 teachers in September, 1925. In that quarter they began to fall. One hundred and seventy or so teachers went off in that quarter, and in the next quarter 408 teachers went off. We were told to-day, in answer to a question, that 84 education authorities were recently told to reduce their teaching staff.
That is the drop in quantity; but what is much more dangerous is the drop in quality. I say the new Code has deliberately prepared the way for the substitution of uncertificated teachers for certificated teachers. The old Code laid it down that the uncertificated teacher was not to be in charge of a class of more than 30; that if there were a group of 70
children in a school, one at least of the teachers was to be certificated. The new Code wipes that away. It is perfectly competent for education authorities, if they get the blessing of the Board of Education, to substitute uncertificated for certificated teachers on a very great scale, and in that way, without altering the size of classes, they can make a larger saving in salaries than by almost any other means. The last President but two of the Board of Education allowed that very thing to happen in London. Under the pressure of the Geddes axe London was allowed to employ, in the infants' schools of London, persons who were utterly unqualified, except that they had had six weeks' intensive training; and to my knowledge those persons were put in charge of classes of well over 30.
When I see steps taken to do precisely the same thing as was done under the last spasm of economy, I cannot but feel that this sweeping away of the restrictions upon uncertificated and supplementary teachers is a planned thing, and can only be taken in conjunction with the exhortations to education authorities to reduce expenditure. I know of nothing more cruel than to tempt unqualified persons into the Service. We shall, I believe, one day have a forward policy in education, and the first thing that will be done will be to try to replace these people by certificated teachers. It is a necessary operation, but it is a horrible and a cruel one. I know, because I had something to do with the re-staffing of the voluntary schools after the Act of 1902, and there could be nothing more distressing than knowing that what you were doing meant taking the bread out of the mouth of a perfectly respectable person, whose only fault was that she had not been properly educated. That is one of the most painful things that any education authority can undertake.
We are to have stabilisation of teachers. That means saying good-bye to our hopes for education in the next four or five years. We are not in the position of being able to get children to stop on in school after the age of 14. In nearly all urban districts the spread of population has left convenient classrooms where one could have separate classes for the boys of 13 and 14 and could keep the boys of 14 to 15 in school. One
of the most important things to be done just now is to induce boys of 14 who are not likely to find a job to stay on at school. We had a system by which scholarships could be given in the elementary schools for children over 15. We ought, I think, to renew that system, but all those proposals are useless if we have not got teachers. We could do a great deal more for the education of the older pupils, and everybody who knows the schools knows that to be a most desirable and needful thing. By means of scholarships we could do a great deal to keep out of the streets all the juveniles who have not got a job and who go into the streets of our great urban centres and. in most cases, undergo a serious intellectual and moral deterioration. Just now we can make, from the material circumstances of the urban districts, a great step forward in reform. Teachers are not made in a day. If we check the supply of qualified teachers, it will take us four or five years to undo the mischief which the present President of the Board of Education has been doing. I have never seen a time when education authorities all over the country have been so distressed an so angry at the falsification of the hopes with which they started in 1925.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. G. HARVEY: This is not a very exciting occasion, apparently, judging by the empty benches, to attempt to say anything upon the important subject of education, and I do not intend, in the circumstances, to occupy the time of the Committee for more than, I hope, a few minutes. But, as a business man, reading the Education Estimates now before the Committee, I see that in 1926, compared with 1913–14, the Estimates have trebled, and I ask myself, as everyone must ask himself, do we get three times the value we did in 1913–14? I cannot see it. I see that the national expenditure amounts to £44,000,000, and the total expenditure on education to £76,000,000. There is no one in this country who appreciates education more than I do, but I cannot help thinking that some our friends on the Opposition benches believe that it is only by extravagance that you can get efficiency—at least, that is the impression I have gathered from some of the remarks I
have heard to-day. For that £76,000,000, there are 4,900,000 children to be looked after.
Some remarks have been made to-day about the educational system in America. I had the pleasure of going through the Washington Irving School of New York, which is largely a technical school. Because the Technical Education Vote is so small to-day, America has been given as an example of what ought to be done. At the Washington Irving School, they have the finest equipment that can possibly be imagined, and they have the very best teachers; but it should be borne in mind by all those who compare the American system with the system here, that at that particular school they work three relays, beginning at 8 o'clock in the morning, and finishing very late at night. It is mostly attended by people who are engaged in business. There is one great difference between the after school idea in this country and that in America. It is that a youth goes into business in the United States of America to get on, and he means to get on, and he uses the technical school as a means of helping him to get on. The same remark, I think, might apply, to a very large extent, to our friends from Scotland and the North of England, who come to London with a firm determination to succeed. We ought not to rely upon State education. We should study that which we know is going to help us in business, and one of the great troubles I find, in dealing with schools and interesting myself in schools, as I do in London to-day, is the lack of utility education—call it vocational, if you like—enabling first and foremost a youth to earn a decent living. There is a great deal going on in the schools to-day which one might call spoon-feeding. We have heard from one hon. Member opposite, who has been a schoolmaster, of his experience of schools, and how the children are not getting what is essential for them in order to make their way in the world. That is my experience to-day.
A little while ago we issued a Circular, No. 1371, on block grants. I know the Minister has tried his best to give value for money, by getting local education authorities, if they wish to increase superficial education, to pay for that part over and above what it is reasonable for the State to expend. But if we treble our expenditure in 10 years, what are we
going to do in the next 10 years? My feeling is that the country is in such a position that it cannot afford extravagance of any kind. There is, unfortunately, in connection with our educational system, a great deal of political jugglery, and I think the educational system of the country is being used as a political weapon, not altogether by one side. Business, unfortunately, is being treated as a somewhat low profession, instead of being the backbone of the country. We ought to study on every possible occasion to get real value for all the money we spend. I believe in equal opportunities for all. I think that all youths in this country should have equal opportunity, but it is no good thinking that they are all equally energetic, that they are all equally possessed of brains, because they obviously are not, and to spend money equally on all alike after 14 years of age, when they either will not or cannot use their brains for the benefit of themselves or their country, is simply wasting money, and wasting it badly. I heard the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. H. Guest) to-night express the hope that the children at the various schools might have the advantage of the public school and the university. There is one thing, however, to remember, and that is, that when one has passed a certain age in life—14 or 15 years if you like—first and foremost utility must be considered.
Education should be directed towards some object or aim in life. Education in its basic sense to-day, as the Headmaster of Rugby said a little while ago, should be to open the pores of the mind to the impressions of experience. That is a very good description of what education should be. There are youths who, after getting certificates to pass them on to higher schools, forget the main object in life, and gradually find themselves, at the age of 21, what one might call educational derelicts in life. I was talking to a man in Canada a little while ago on that very subject. He was a man connected with education in the Free State, and he ventured to say he was a specimen of that class, because when he left the university, he did not know which way to turn or what to do; in other words, he lost sight of any vocation that might have come his way until too late. He was too proud and too big to start at the bottom in an office and work his way up, because the
boys from the public elementary schools, who had begun at the beginning, had passed the stage where he could reasonably expect to start.
Misguided education is one of our troubles. I do not think anyone on these benches would object to spending money which could be spent wisely and well. There is nobody, I think, who, in reason, objects to paying teachers well, and who would not do everything to encourage the children in the very best possible way to make the best citizens. Teach them what Sir James Barrie wrote—courage and honesty. Before you can effectively study the principles of co-partnership and general peace and well-being in business, you must have courage, you must have honesty and you must have education, but it must be education of the right common sense sort. As long as we carry our system of education on a utility basis by the use of technical schools, and teach youths how to earn their living as a primary object, we shall be properly using our money, and using it for the benefit of the individual as well as the State. I know it is very unpleasant to see these constant increases in the Estimates, especially in these difficult days, but if money be spent wisely, no reasonable person will object. But I believe a great deal of our money is spent, not to the best advantage. It is the President's duty—and I hope he will pursue it to the utmost possible extent—to find out those avenues through which money is wasted, and have the courage and determination on each and every occasion to cut it off ruthlessly without fear and without favour.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I hope the Noble Lady will have enjoyed the speech delivered from the almost empty benches behind her a little while ago, and I hope when she is contemplating the very difficult problem of how to bring the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education back to the path of rectitude in educational policy, and wanting to keep him there, if an Under-Secretary might be of use to her, she will know where to look for that individual. I regret I was not able to hear the whole of the Noble Lord's speech this afternoon, on account of an important Committee upstairs, but I gather he has not had anything to say this afternoon about
adult education in relation to general policy. I would therefore like to draw attention to that aspect of the Board's work, and, for that reason, I will spend no time in following up the various lines of criticism with regard to elementary and secondary education, which has been the main feature of the discussion to-day I would only say one thing, in passing, with regard to that more general aspect of education, and that is with regard to the problem which has been raised again and again this afternoon—
It being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — EDINBURGH CORPORATION (STREETS, BUILDINGS AND SEWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. MACLEAN: There are one or two points in this Bill to which I take exception, and in my opinion they are matters which ought to have been put right before this Bill was brought down to this House for its Third Reading. The parts of this Bill to which I take exception are Clauses 26 and 27 relating to the powers given to the railways. Certain powers are given to the Dean of Guild Court, and I want to call attention to the point where the Clause exempts railway companies from having to place before the Dean of Guild Court plans and specifications for any new building they seek to erect that is not abutting upon a main street. So far as I can understand the powers of the Dean of Guild Court and the rights to protect those employed and who live within certain buildings, I consider the latitude which is being given to the railway companies is far greater than ought to be given. The portion to which I am taking exception is Clause 26, which contains the following words:
Provided that it shall not be necessary for any railway company to obtain a war-
rant of the Dean of Guild Court for any building used or to be used for the purposes of their railway or canal unless:

(1) such building fronts or abuts upon any street;
(2) such building is a dwelling-house hotel or restaurant; or
(3) such building has been erected or is proposed to be erected at the Waverley Station of the London and North Eastern Railway Company or on the railway lines or property adjoining Princes Street Gardens."

These are the exceptions, but so far as this Bill is concerned the London and North Eastern Railway Company have very large sidings at Portobello, and. engineering works at St. Margarets, within the boundaries of the Edinburgh Corporation. The freedom that is given to the railway companies in this section would mean that at either St. Margarets or Portobello, or both places, the London and North Eastern Company could erect any building they chose without having to present to the Dean of Guild Court the plans and specifications of the buildings they are going to erect. They could erect them any height they like, although any other company would have restrictions placed upon the height of the buildings which they might erect in the City of Edinburgh with regard to warehouses.
It is also laid down in another Clause of this Bill that the material to be used in the erection of any building must have the approval of the Dean of Guild Court, but here in this particular section a railway company is to be released from any of these obligations, and may erect any kind of building they choose without submitting the plan, and erect it of any class of material without having to place the nature of that material before the Dean of Guild Court for their sanction. I submit that that is a power which ought not to be given to anybody whether it is a corporation, an individual, or a railway company running through Edinburgh. To bring this point down to its comparative bearing—I am not considering the point of any building speculator or anyone who wants to erect new premises in Edinburgh—supposing an individual resides in a house that has some ground around it, and he wants to erect a small motor garage of wood or concrete, before he could do that, which would not jeopardise the safety of anyone passing his house or interfere with the comfort or convenience or the æsthetic taste of any of his neigh-
bours, he would have to place his plans before the Dean of Guild Court for their sanction, and they would have to approve of the materials used. I think it is going a great deal too far to allow railway companies such wide powers as are provided for in Clause 26 of this Bill.
There is another point I want to make and it is with regard to the railway companies. I am now referring to Clause 125 on page 81. It deals with the building lines at corners of streets. There again the railway companies are being exempted from any of the conditions laid down in this Bill, which are imposed upon any other individual or any other company. The railway companies are to be exempted from the conditions that operate, and from the power given to the Edinburgh Corporation which they can impose upon every other individual with regard to building lines at corners of streets. The railway companies are again exempt, and the Corporation of Edinburgh seems to have no power, or else they have bartered away the power which they might otherwise possess in order to secure the passage of this Bill to enforce upon railway companies satisfactory building lines at corners of streets which are imposed upon other people.
With regard to the construction of buildings, it is laid down in this Bill that any new building must contain, for safety, a certain class of window that can be cleaned from the inside, without the necessity for any individual having to go outside and sit upon the window-sill or stand outside in order to clean it. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and the further power asked for by the corporation is equally reasonable, namely, that any building that is reconstructed should have the same class of window, and that any window that does not conform with this Regulation must be altered to conform to it. I consider that that is perfectly legitimate, but if that is the case in regard to new or reconstructed buildings, it is equally right and proper that that class of window should be placed in the houses at present standing, and that the Corporation of Edinburgh, when coming to Parliament with a Bill of this nature, should have asked leave to place in it a Section under which, after a certain time had been given to the proprietors of houses and buildings in Edinburgh in
which to alter the present windows, every building, and particularly dwelling houses, would have to be fitted with this particular class of window, thereby ensuring greater safety for the women-folk who have to live there, and who in many cases sit out on the window-sills to clean the windows. The Corporation of Glasgow have already a by-law to that effect, although, unfortunately, they have not put it into operation. I suggest that, this power having already been granted to Glasgow by Act of Parliament, the Edinburgh Corporation would not, and could not, have been prevented from seeking powers of a similar character and having them embodied in this Bill. On account, particularly, of the great amount of freedom which is given to the railway companies in this Bill, and the fact that certain powers which are to be given to the Edinburgh Corporation, and which they in turn will require to exercise upon people resident or companies operating in the City of Edinburgh, are not to be applied to the railway companies, who ought to be brought within these Sections just as much as private companies or individuals, I feel emboldened to object to the passage of this Bill to-night.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I hope my hon. Friend will not persevere in his opposition to the Third Reading of this Bill. The two points that he made are, firstly, what he alleges to be the exceptional treatment that is given to the railway companies under the terms of the Bill, and, secondly, that the Edinburgh Corporation should have sought power to do certain things, as regards safety in connection with windows and so on, which they have not sought. This, however, is the Third Reading, and we are mainly concerned with what is in the Bill itself. What should have been in the Bill would have been more properly raised on the Second Reading. As regards the railway companies, I would point out that the Corporation itself have thrashed this matter out, and no doubt would have taken the initiative had they thought it wise or right in the interests of their citizens to alter their position vis-à-vis the railway companies; but this is their own proposal, and is not a proposal which has been rushed or which comes hurriedly before the House. In the
first place, this Bill is largely a consolidating, and only partly an amending, Bill. The draft Order was originally lodged as long ago as December last, petitions were deposited, and an inquiry held locally. The Bill was then introduced, and it has passed, not only all its stages in the other House but every stage but the last in this House, and I think that in these circumstances I may plead with my hon. Friend not to persist in his opposition to the Bill receiving its Third Reading.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The speech which has just been delivered by my hon. and gallant Friend has anticipated in part the few words that I should like to address to the House on this Bill. This is a large Measure, running to more than 200 Clauses, promoted by the Corporation of Edinburgh, and I think it ought to be made clear at once from these benches that there is not one iota of privately run interest of any description in the Bill from one end to the other; it is a purely public Measure promoted by the Corporation of Edinburgh. Fourteen petitions were originally lodged in the latter part of last year, and they came before an appropriate tribunal of inquiry in Edinburgh, consisting of two Members of the other House and two Members of this House, one of whom was my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr W. M. Watson). Before that tribunal all the petitions save two disappeared, and agreement was reached on the last two petitions, so that the Measure is now for all practical purposes an agreed proposal, and it is one of vital importance to the citizens of the capital of Scotland. Up to this stage no objection, apparently, has been taken in this House, but, in any event, all objections to the Measure should have been taken before the inquiry, or at some earlier stage in the proceedings. I desire to say from this Box that, while I have no desire to impose upon the freedom of any of my hon. Friends in opposing a Measure, and certainly I have no desire to take away any right or any objection that an hon. Member desires to lodge, the only effect of this opposition at the present time has been to put the electors of Edinburgh to a great deal of expense in connection with this proposal, without,
I am bound to say, any valid reason whatever. There is no reason in the world why this Bill should have been delayed, and I believe I speak for the everwhelming majority of my colleagues on this side of the House when I say that we dissociate ourselves from the objection which has now been taken.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: After the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), I feel sure there is no necessity to enforce our great desire, and the great desire of all the Members for the City of Edinburgh, that this Bill should receive its Third Reading to-night. It is a most important matter for the City of Edinburgh. It receives the unanimous assent of the Corporation, and it is not, if I may presume to say so, a very friendly act for a representative from the City of Glasgow to raise this objection to one of the greatest Bills the Corporation of Edinburgh has brought forward. The City of Glasgow and the City of Edinburgh have always lived on terms of the greatest possible friendship, and I trust that no action of any hon. Member from the City of Glasgow, on an occasion which for our City is so great a one as this, will break the friendship that has lasted for so many years.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to say that I do not wish to oppose this Bill, but nevertheless I think my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) has exercised his right in bringing what he thought was a perfectly valid point before the House. Although it may involve expense to the corporation of Edinburgh, nevertheless, when a Member has to choose between the question of cost and the question of public duty, that Member is justly entitled to exercise his public duty. I think the Bill as a whole is an exceedingly good Bill, although there are certain things that I should have liked to see in it. I see that it deals with back courts and turnings, and I should have liked to see the abolition of the spiked railings in these courts, which have been the cause not only in Edinburgh but in Glasgow, of a large number of children meeting injury and death. I agree, however, that that is a Second Reading point, and I only rose to enter a slight protest against what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the
member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) on one point. As I have said, I think the Bill as a whole is an exceedingly good one, and the one point upon which, if I may, I desire to differ from the right hon. Gentleman in quite a friendly way, is in regard to his statement that those who were objecting should have taken their objections much earlier. I want to put this to the right hon. Gentleman, that, while it is all very well to say that, and it is elementary and accepted, he ought to know, as we all know, the course of procedure through which these Bills go. For instance, along with this Bill was a Greenock Bill which is going to come forward. It would not be in order to discuss it, but the analogy holds good. In that Greenock Bill was a principle of the greatest importance to the whole of the Labour movement in Scotland. It was not objected to before the Committee, largely because the people in the locality have never taken notice of it and did not think the Corporation of Greenock would go on with a thing of that importance in a Provisional Order. There are very many points which, owing to lack of knowledge and for various reasons, miss the scrutiny of the public and private citizens, and thus get to this stage when the Member of Parliament has to intervene. It it for that reason only that I rise, because, while there has been a committee of inquiry and all that procedure has been taken, it does not take away from the exercise of the legitimate rights of a Member of the House to raise points which may have escaped the scrutiny of other people. I join with other Members in asking the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to withdraw. There are some valuable things in the Bill, things which might almost be said to be municipal Socialism, and for that reason I think my hon. Friend might allow it to go through as a legitimate development of public life.

Mr. MACLEAN: There is one point I should like to make clear to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). This is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. Under this form of examination of the Bill in Scotland all objections are there heard and decided. I allowed this to go through on
the Second Reading knowing that all objections to it would be heard there, and that it would have to come back here, and that I could legitimately raise any objections which had not been removed. It is not a question whether it costs money. I do not desire to make Edinburgh or Glasgow or any other city incur expenditure, but if I consider there is something in a Private Bill which it is perfectly legitimate to raise. I am surely, within my rights in objecting to it and having it discussed on the Floor of the House so that the grievance or objection can be ventilated in a proper manner. I could not do that while the Bill was going through the ordinary course of procedure for Private Bills under this form of legislation. The railway companies were among the objectors to the Bill. They appeared before the Procedure Committee in Edinburgh, and, having had their objections removed by the inclusion of the things I have been taking exception to, now withdraw their objection and allow this to go, having got what they wanted. I think I am within my rights in ventilating those objections, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any right to talk about the bulk of his colleagues dissociating themselves from my action. All my colleagues, and the House, may dissociate themselves from my action with regard to this or any other Bill, but their dissociation does not deprive me of my right to raise the matter on the Floor of the House, which I shall continue to do where I think it necessary to do so. I withdraw my objection.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords] (By Order).

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — MARGATE CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order).

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

CLASS IV.

Orders of the Day — BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on Consideration of Question:
That a sum, not exceeding £28,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,299,900, be granted for the said Service."

Mr. R. SMITH: I should like to underline what has been said by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) in relation to the paucity of provision for our junior technical schools. There is no greater problem before the country in respect of education at present than that of adapting our public educational system to the requirements of British industry in the 20th century. In my recent visit to America nothing impressed me more than the large and wide way in which the Americans are endeavouring to adapt their educational institutions to the requirements of 20th century industry. Nothing I think, is more impressive to Europeans in visiting that Continent than to see the wide policy for encouraging young boys and girls in definite vocational training, and to see the very expert way in which they are harnessing the varied aspects of modern industrial life to the laboratory and the classroom for young people in order that they may get a logical and practical connection between the schools of the country and the great needs of modern industry. I would therefore underline what my hon. Friend has said with regard to the need of a very large extension of junior technical school policy in order that we may come much nearer solving the problems that confront the country if we are to rediscover ourselves in the 20th century setting of our industry.
I do not want to spend time following further the general criticsms which have been made of our present administration of education, but rather to concentrate upon two practical points, not bearing upon elementary or secondary education, but having to do with adult educational policy, for which the Board is responsible. I should like to pass away from the realm of criticism and complaint and offer a word of sincere congratulation to the present administration for the way in which they have been not only keeping up the tradition of adult educational expenditure and administration, but actually improving the administration in the course of the past 18 months. I would draw attention especially to one or two very practical matters. One is in regard to the work the Board has done in providing books for the libraries of the country. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that there is no more fruitful expenditure which the Board undertakes than that of providing first-class text books, through the libraries, for the service of working-class students.
Before I came to this House, I spent a considerable number of years as a tutor of the Workers' Educational Association, under the Tutorial Classes Joint Committee of the Sheffield University, and I know from the number of years that was engaged in that work what a change—tantamount to a revolution— has taken place in the actual conduct of tutorial class work, due to the social expenditure upon tutorial class libraries throughout the country. I can recall scores of instances of the extraordinary difficulty under which working men and working women had to carry out their non-vocational studies. When it is remembered that working men and women who attend these tutorial classes have to conduct their studies, as a rule, in their own homes, often with children, and with all the noise of conversation which characterises family life, that they have no study room of their own, and that they have to attempt to concentrate on their studies at the end of a long working day, it will readily be appreciated how tremendous is the service which the Board is rendering in support of this practical work, through the provision of libraries.
I remember many cases where the best of my working men and working women
students suffered a grave handicap. A working man cannot afford to pay 15s. or a pound for first-class books, and again and again they had to waste their time and could not derive such satisfaction as is possible under these difficult conditions of study, because they could not get books. I should like, therefore, to offer sincere congratulations to the Board for the work they are doing in helping on bodies like the Central Library for students, and in getting together so large a number of first-class and indispensable text books for the assistance of working men and women students in connection with the Workers' Educational Association tutorial class system. In View of the considerable utility of that kind of service and the need there is for its future extension, I ask the Noble Lady to plead with the Board to see whether they cannot add to their good record in this direction by giving a further grant of money for the purpose.
A further point is in regard to the provision for extra-mural education, and especially the facilities which are given for providing a first-class education for men like trade union leaders, co-operative administrators and others, in addi-to other men and women who benefit by this opportunity. Whilst there is so much that we can criticise in regard to other aspects of the Board's policy, I should like to say that in this respect the Board this year and last year have maintained the high traditions which have been set by the Department. I was particularly impressed with the way in which the present Board have administered the special grants which were made under the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Act, 1923, for the purposes of education. I think that under that Act it was proposed to set apart £5,000 per year for extramural work. I should like to congratulate the Board on having made possible the acquirement by the working people of this country of education of first-rate significance in this way. When it is remembered that at Oxford and Cambridge through that scheme we have been able to get together not a few men and women who would otherwise have been entirely deprived of this particular education, men and women of first-rate significance to the public life of this country, too high praise cannot be given for the policy of
continuing the work which the Board have maintained. Here again, in view of the value of this extra-mural work, and the importance of working out the broadening conception of what a university should do in a modern democratic community, I would ask whether the Noble Lady will press upon the Board of Education that this year we may have a further extension. A sum of £5,000 out of £80,000 is not much to devote to this phase of education. A larger amount of money might be spent in that direction.
I should like also to draw attention to the Report of the Adult Education Committee in 1919. They said:
It is essential that there should be greater opportunities to enable adult students to study in the universities for longer or shorter periods. Summer schools should be so extended and arranged as to offer throughout the whole year opportunities of study for extra-mural students. Universities should also provide opportunities for study for municipal civil servants, teachers, trade union officials, and other groups of people.
In pleading for an extension of grants for extra-mural work in connection with the ancient universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and bearing in mind the work of a similar character which has been done in the provincial universities, I would ask the Board to consider the wider ramifications of this policy. They realise as well as we do on this side of the House that, confronted as we are with the present industrial impasse, with the breakdown of contractual relations and the breakdown of any kind of common plan for settling the difficulty in a great basic industry of this country, in the long run it will be the Minister of Education much more than the Secretary for Mines who will provide an abiding solution for this industrial problem. I would, therefore, ask the Board whether they cannot, in considering the possibility of extending the system of extra-mural education, bring into more generous application the point of view which was laid down by the Adult Education Committee in 1919, namely, that it is just as important for the purpose of 20th century life in this country that trade union leaders, and co-operative administrators, men who belong to specific working-class organisations who have large responsibilities in industrial and public life should have opened up to them
possibilities for education of a first-class character, in order that we may in the course of the next 25 years have such a multiplication of first-rate ability throughout every section of the community, that we can be perfectly certain that, while the Secretary for Mines is engaged in the hurly burly of dealing with pressing and urgent practical industrial problems, the Board of Education, in its quiet way, is so broadening the foundation of our public education that a generation hence we shall have such a wealth of educated people in the secure possession of this country that we can do far greater things than the 18th and 19th centuries did in the way of renovating and re-creating our whole industrial system, in the service of the men, women and children of this country.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I propose to engage the attention of the Committee for a very short time, because I gather that the Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has a large number of questions to which she desires to reply, and I also understand that an arrangement has been arrived at to raise another equally important subject later. In order to enable sufficient time to be devoted to that subject, I propose to reduce my remarks within a very short compass. I have listened to the Debate from the beginning. I heard with great interest the speech of the Noble Lord. The oftener I hear him address the House on the subject of education the more difficult I find it to understand the things he says outside the House. He has a sort of duel personality, a Jekyll and Hyde arrangement. On the platform and in this House he speaks with enthusiasm and carries our complete agreement, but when he is at the Board of Education, removed from the public gaze, he fills us with apprehension. The Noble Lord since his accession to office has undertaken a sort of pilgrimage throughout the country in which he has been exhorting laggard authorities. For that effort we are extremely obliged, and we gather that as a result of that pilgrimage he anticipated not merely a verbal continuity of the policy of his predecessors, but an actual continuity. What in fact has happened? I doubt whether any local authority could tell us, or each other, what they conceive to be the sustained policy of the Board of
Education. I have been reading with some interest what the Prime Minister declared was the policy of the Government in the matter of education. In a book called "Looking Ahead" he wrote this:
The Unionist party is in favour of securing for every child effective and practical education, which will develop individual character and yet give to everyone the chance of making the best out of his or her talents and improve his or her position in life. With this end in view the party will desire to see all schools conducted in healthy and well-equipped buildings by qualified and adequately remunerated teachers, would maintain close co-ordination in elementary, secondary, technical and higher education, and see that all secondary and university courses should be brought within the reach of every child in an elementary school who may be desirous and capable of taking advantage of them.
9.0 P.M.
The Noble Lord has been in office for about 20 months. Is he satisfied that all schools are at the moment conducted in healthy and well-equipped buildings? Are they staffed by qualified and adequately-remunerated teachers? Is there a close co-ordination between elementary, secondary, technical and higher education; and are secondary and university courses brought within the reach of every child in an elementary school who may be desirous and capable of taking advantage of them? In fact, is this policy to which the Prime Minister committed himself, as he says in the foreword "after consultation with his colleagues," now in actual operation or are we to take it that it is his desire some day, somehow, to achieve it? He has talked this evening of taking a survey of our educational services. May I direct his attention to a quotation from an article he wrote himself in a publication, which I think is a Unionist publication called, "the Man in the Street"—though what connection a Unionist publication has with the man-in-the-street I do not know. In this publication he says:
Ever since the present system came into force seven years ago, though great progress has been made in England, that progress has been made jerkily by fits and starts.
One of our criticisms is that the Noble Lord's policy has been in fact a series of jerks. First it was progress; now it is reaction, at least in fact if not on the platform. But he says further:
If a local authority is to undertake work of this kind it must be sure not merely as at present that the State will pay part of the cost of the first year's working but that it can rely on a continuing amount of help from the State year by year over a period of years, and that it runs no risk of being stopped in the middle of its scheme because other local authorities have spent more than the Government expected.
It is one of our chief points against the present policy of the Noble Lord, not merely that local authorities have to meet their own local needs in their own local way but that the Noble Lord is, in fact, at this moment pulling up local authorities and telling them they cannot do this because it is in advance of their neighbours. The consequence of all this is, as the Noble Lord will not deny, that a sense of apprehension exists in the minds of local authorities, north, south, east and west.

Lord E. PERCY: indicated dissent.

Mr. JONES: The Noble Lord shakes his head, feeling, no doubt, that wherever he happens to go everything is best in the best of all possible worlds, but, as a matter of fact, he knows perfectly well that it is so. We have heard one of his own supporters this evening give point to the criticisms which have been advanced from this side. The Hornsey local education authority, upon which, I understand, there is not a single Labour member, is very apprehensive lest they may find that the President of the Board of Education has broken his word and pledge. If we needed any confirmation we have it in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace). There are one or two questions I want to address to the Noble Lady before she replies. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) asked what the attitude of the Board of Education was in regard to the question of training colleges. It is a very vital problem from many points of view. It is very material to know whether the Board of Education has now come to the conclusion that one year of intensive training is adequate for the purposes of our elementary schools. I very much doubt whether one year will prove to be satisfactory.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough and I have some personal experience of the training that is obtained in these training colleges, and he will agree with
me that one of their chief values is not so much the actual instruction obtained as the happy period of association with people drawn from all parts of the country, with different views, different outlooks on life, the social association that exists, which broadens the outlook of each teacher, gives him an idea of the educational methods in operation in various parts of the country and an entirely new point of view concerning the function of the school in the social organism. I consider that the proposal to reduce the period to one year is a thoroughly reactionary proposal. Everyone with whom I have discussed the matter has argued that the desirable thing in connection with teachers' training is a linking up of that training with the universities as far as possible, but if you link it up with the universities it is obvious that the period of training should not be reduced but rather extended from two years to three years, so that the teacher in that atmosphere can obtain the same benefit from the full university course as the other university student obtains. By reducing the period of training to one year we shall do the whole educational system a grave injustice.
Is there not a danger, if we reduce the course to one year, of our turning out a larger number of students than the system can absorb easily? The persons who have secured their second certificate will naturally cram as much as they can. They know that resources are limited and that by getting successfully through the one-year course they will better themselves financially. They will win one extra year as trained certificate teachers, and one extra year towards their superannuation. Those considerations will obviously weigh very heavily with teachers, who will want to get their college career through as quickly as possible. Here the question arises: if you turn out a very large number of one-year course students, duly qualified and certificated, what guarantee is there of employment for them? Even for the teachers coming out in July, the two-year course teachers, is there any guarantee of places in the schools? I will give two cases. Under the operation of the Noble Lord's policy for the staffing of schools two big authorities in South Wales have been at loggerheads, or temporarily at variance, with the Board of Education. As a result of pressure from the Board the Rhondda
Education Authority have agreed that they will not dismiss old teachers and that they will not employ new teachers. It is the same with the Merthyr Tydvil Education Authority. What is going to happen to the people from those areas who this year will be emerging from the training colleges? Obviously they will swell the ranks of the unemployed, unless we can be given an assurance to-night that the policy of reducing the staffing of the schools is not to be carried further than hitherto.
I would like to know exactly what is the principle upon which this new edict, this ukase of the Board of Education is being issued? You tell a big education authority like that of the West Riding or that of Glamorganshire or Durham, "You have a certain number of teachers in your area. We will not allow you to have more teachers than this number henceforward." If you lay down such a rule as that what is the inevitable consequence? They have to rearrange their staff in various ways. Surely one of the natural consequences will be that again the rural schools, the small schools, will run great risk of suffering. We know what happens. The pressure of public opinion in the big towns makes itself felt. The out-of-the-way village of the countryside has no organised public opinion to express itself, and, therefore, the village school suffers inevitably. Already the staffing in many of the village schools is shamefully bad, to say the least. If we are going to readjust and rearrange the staffing of our schools, what precisely does the Noble Lord think is going to happen in some of the infant departments in various parts of the country? He knows as well as I do that the method of treatment of children in infant schools to-day is not what it was ten or fifteen years ago. It is not what it was even six years ago. We have had the introduction in recent years of methods such as the Dalton method, which is a method of specific individual treatment, each individual child working out its little schemes in its own way. All that involves a far more intensified individual attention on the part of the teacher. If we are to have larger classes in the schools it obviously means that this work will be far more scamped than would otherwise be the case.
What is the main criticism that we have to make in regard to the administration of the Board in the last 12 months? Broadly speaking it is this: We feel that the great promise which the President of the Board gave to us and to the country at the beginning of his period of office has not been realised. Personally I would forgive him for much of his failure in so far as it arises from financial difficulties, but I feel that the trouble arises from something far deeper than that. I am convinced that the Noble Lord does not, in fact, look upon this question of education from the same point of view as did his predecessors, nor does he desire to see the development of education as his predecessors did. The Noble Lord and his colleagues regard education from a different angle. With them education seems to be a privilege granted to the people on the lower rung of the social scale. To us education is a social right, and it is because it is a social right, and one which must be realised in the immediate future, that I take so great an exception to the reactionary proposals adumbrated by the Noble Lord. I am reinforced in that objection by another quotation, which I will read to the Committee, from the statement of Unionist principles and aims given by the Prime Minister. He says:
Disraeli said that you can never achieve success without a comprehension of the spirit of the age. The spirit of this age is a spirit restless and dissatisfied; and yet that restlessness and dissatisfaction do not arise wholly from motives otherwise than good. One of the leading motives is the desire of the bulk of the men and women of this country to be able to enter into the wonderful heritage that science, knowledge, education have opened in all branches of learning, to all those who can take advantage of it, during the last generation. It is a hunger for better things, and it will be our duty to do what we can to make it easier for our people to satisfy that most legitimate hunger.
It is because hunger is not being satisfied by the Noble Lord that I support the reduction of this Vote.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Although the hon. Member who has just sat down concluded his speech with a charge of a general and serious character, the Debate, as a whole, has centred on various details of the Board's administration during the last year. As is inevitable in education Debates, a considerable variety of details has been touched upon, but criticism has
centred chiefly around two items in the administration of the Board. The first is the new staffing arrangement outlined in the new Code for elementary schools; the second is the proposal for allowing a one-year course in the training colleges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) told the Committee that in this new Code, all standards of staffing in the elementary schools were being swept away. I think the right hon. Gentleman in his study of the new Code must have omitted to glance through the Circular issued with the Code to local education authorities. Had he read that Circular, he would have seen that the Board specifically stated that though no express standard had been mentioned, Circular 1360, which represented the latest word in detailed requirements, was still to be considered as the view of the Board as to its minimum standard.
I want to make it quite clear to the Committee that the standard laid down in Circular 1360 is regarded by the Board as a minimum. It is a minimum which, as we have been reminded by hon. Members, is exceeded by many authorities, and the Board, in excluding mention of that circular from the Code itself, did so in the hope and expectation that the establishments that would be proposed to the Board by the various authorities, as representing their policy of staffing in the future, Would be considerably better than the minimum outlined in Circular 1360. The right hon. Gentleman I am sure will agree—at least it is an opinion which we often hear stated from the benches opposite—that a minimum tends to become a standard, and if the Board keeps Circular 1360 in the background and does not expressly state to the authorities that it is to be the minimum standard, it is because they hope for something better from, at any rate, most of the authorities of the country.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I have here a circular which you have sent to Merthyr Tydvil, and they have had to cut down most abominably.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not think that circular refers to establishments. I was dealing with the point raised by hon. Members opposite who criticised us on the ground that we were asking the local authorities to submit establishments
and had not indicated to them that we had any standards in this matter, and that view I hope I have answered. Then we have to remember that, sometimes, authorities have no very defined policy in the matter of staffing. We hope by asking for their establishments to get them to define a policy, both as regards quantity and otherwise. We hope this will mean that staffing will become a more considered matter by the local authorities, depending less than it does at present on the exertions of a head teacher or on views of managers. If an authority puts forward a particular establishment it is something to which it can be held. That, we hope, will tend to keep the standard of staffing up to the level agreed upon between the Board and the various local authorities. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if an establishment is fixed for an area as a whole, and not merely considered as concerning separate schools, it will be easier for the Board to see the tendency to departure from that standard either up or down and, therefore, it will be easier to know how the staffing as a whole stands, and to apply such remedy as seems necessary and possible. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members spoke of the letters sent by the Board to certain authorities dealing with their expenditure in staffing and other items. The motive that prompted those letters was the conviction that it is the duty of the Board to see that the country gets full value for the expenditure of the local education authorities. In the case of Hornsey, which has been mentioned, the expenditure is much above that of other urban authorities; but Hornsey has not provided the opportunities for its older children which other areas can provide. Hornsey has little or no advanced instruction for older children and no central schools and, on the other hand, it has some classes which are very much below the average size for similar districts. Therefore, we say that if other districts can give children better instruction at less cost, there is a reasonable case for taking up the matter with the Hornsey authority, and pointing out to them where we think their system can be improved and at the same time made less costly. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if we went into no details with the authorities in this matter, and simply
called blindly for reductions. But it is just because the Board is communicating with individual authorities in regard to individual items that I feel the authorities concerned are given an opportunity of making their case in regard to any item which is challenged by the Board.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the Noble Lady think that the nation will get full value for the money expended on education, if the classes are increased to 50 children per class?

Duchess of ATHOLL: There is no suggestion of sending the classes in Hornsey up to 50.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Not in Hornsey?

Duchess of ATHOLL: The authorities with which the Board is in communication are urban authorities who have for some unexplained reason classes very much below the usual size, some of which on the other hand are not giving their older scholars the opportunities of advanced instruction to which we attach so much importance. The case of Hornsey has been specially mentioned to the Committee this afternoon. There has been consultation in the first place between the Board's inspectors and the authority, and between my right hon. Friend personally and the chairman of the Hornsey Education Committee. Hornsey made an offer the Board made a counter-proposal. My right hon. Friend will shortly receive a deputation from Hornsey which will doubtless submit their own counter-proposal. My right hon. Friend has no intention whatever of asking for unreasonable reductions this year, provided the authority can show they have a scheme for reorganisation which can be spread over two or three years.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is it intended to make Hornsey reduce the expenditure and spread it over a series of years?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I have not suggested any figure to which the Hornsey Council should reduce. I may mention that Hornsey has, I think, 15 classes with about 20 children on the roll

Mr. TREVELYAN: It is being done on the basis of Hornsey being asked to reduce to the tune of £10,000.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise from what I have just said that the matter is still open for communication between the Board and the local authority. In regard to this question of staffing in general, great fears have been expressed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for North-East Ham (Miss Lawrence), who expressed the opinion that we wanted to reduce the total number of teachers in the country. I do not think my hon. Friends can have studied the Estimates or the Estimates Memorandum, because, if they had, they would realise that, not only had we 1,100 more teachers in employment in March, 1926, than we had in December, 1924, but the figure for this year allowed for a further increase of 1,100 teachers.

Miss LAWRENCE: Is it not the case that 400 teachers have been cut off during the period since the change began in September?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think the hon. Member remembers that between September and March there was probably the usual drop at that time of year. The Board's Estimates are drafted to allow for an increase of 1,100 teachers in the financial year. The numbers fluctuate as was shown at different periods of the year. In regard to the fear which the hon. Member or another hon. Member expressed as to unemployment among teachers, it is cheering to remember that last autumn, within a short time, practically all the young teachers who had come out of the training colleges in 1925 had been absorbed in the schools, no doubt contributing to the increase of 1,300 certificated teachers. The hon. Member for Wellingborough who I am sorry not to see in his place—

Mr. COVE: Here he is!

Duchess of ATHOLL: —put a question as to whether the Board is not working to a standard of 50 children in the junior school and 40 in the upper school. I do not think the hon. Member could have been here when my right hon. Friend was speaking.

Mr. COVE: Yes.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Perhaps he was not listening. Had he given my hon. Friend his careful attention, he would
have noticed that he said specifically that he did not desire 50 to be a standard. We regard 50 as a maximum. Forty will be regarded as a maximum for the older children in the elementary schools.

Mr. COVE: May we take it that the impression which the Hornsey authority have gathered from the report of the discussion with the educational committee is entirely erroneous? It states that a message was brought from the Board of Education through the mouth of the inspector that 50 was the standard for under 12 years of age, and 40 above 12. May we take it that is an erroneous impression regarding the policy of the Board?

Duchess of ATHOLL: Certainly, and we do not accept that account of the conversation as an authoritative one. If there be any doubt, the Hornsey authority will have the opportunity of putting it before my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Wellingborough further asked me whether any pressure was being put by the Board to lower the size of large classes. The first answer to that lies in the figures that my right hon. Friend gave, showing the reduction that has taken place in the number of classes over 50. Then I think it was realised as long as two years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, that it is not possible to make all the advances desired in the reduction until many buildings have been replaced or improved, because very often there is no additional classroom to which to send the children.
Again and again the authorities' hands are tied simply by the arrangement of the building. Therefore the key to this whole question lies in the provision of better buildings, the replacement of some schools and the improvement of others. That is the step that is necessary in most cases to the reduction which we all so much desire, and it also is the step which is necessary to lead to the better grading of the older children which we all recognise is necessary in their interests. Therefore, our pressure on the authorities is to proceed with their buildings, and if we can induce them to replace the worst of the buildings—my right hon. Friend has shown there has been considerable progress in spite of the difficulties—we can say truthfully we are
continuing on the path which inevitably leads to a reduction in the bigger classes. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Sir T. Davies) compared the work of a single teacher in a small rural school with that of the teacher of the large class, and I was interested to hear the applause that his comparison drew from the benches opposite. I take it from that applause that they realise how essential it is to do everything possible towards the better grading of the older children. It is the older children who are chiefly suffering in these small elementary schools.
The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle said something about the reduction in the inspectorate. That reduction has to a considerable extent been in the lower ranks, and it is hoped, when the reorganisation has taken place, that the inspectorate will function to better advantage. It is a step towards removing unnecessary barriers between different types of schools, to which more than one speaker has alluded. Then the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough expressed anxiety about the question of handicraft instructors. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Darlington that it is much better if you can get these subjects taught by trained teachers, provided they have acquired a thorough knowledge of the subject required, because technical instruction can then be related to the other lessons in a way that will tend generally to the benefit of the scholars. The fact is, however, that we have not enough teachers who can teach handicrafts. We are training them, but we have not enough for the needs of the schools, and that is shown in one rural area, which has done more in the way of supplying practical instruction than most authorities. In that area no fewer than 12 centres have been without teachers. No teachers could be found to give the handicraft instruction needed, and, therefore, the County Councils Association have asked the Board to allow them to employ men who, though not trained teachers, are trained craftsmen, and who, therefore, should be able to give efficient instruction in their crafts, though obviously they could not give instruction in other educational subjects. Therefore, it is really quite
beyond the mark to suggest that this marks the entrance of the unlettered and untrained craftsman into the schools.
Then I come to the question of the proposals that have been made to allow training colleges to admit to a one-year course pupils who have taken a second examination in secondary schools. That is described by the hon. Member for Wellingborough as a reactionary proposal, but I would like to remind him that it was a proposal made by some members of the Departmental Committee on the Training of Teachers, and that most of the signatories to this proposal were distinguished members of the teaching profession. The object in view when that proposal was made was to encourage pupils to remain in a secondary school for a full secondary course, because the great majority of the students, or 65 per cent. of them, entering the training colleges to-day are young men or young women who have not enjoyed a full secondary course. They have been pupil teachers, student teachers, or others whose secondary school course has been cut short, and the Board attaches very great importance to secondary school scholars attending secondary schools until the age of 18. That has been the main aim in view, to try to encourage young people to derive the fullest benefit possible from a secondary course. But, as my right hon. Friend has said—and again I do not know that the hon. Member for Wellingborough has derived all the benefit he might have from the announcement—he has deferred this proposal until he has received reports from the joint bodies which he hopes will be set up as a result of his suggestion to the training colleges. He feels that it is only right to give the joint examining bodies that he hopes to see set up the opportunity of expressing some opinion in the matter, and he is willing to wait until that time.
The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle spoke somewhat slightingly of the training colleges. He spoke of them as providing second-class academic education. I do not feel competent to compare the academic training in the training colleges with that in the universities, but I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who spoke of the value that can
be obtained from a training college training. I have not had the advantage of experiencing it myself, but I am quite prepared to believe that a great deal has been done and is being done for thousands of young people to-day in our training colleges. But we feel it will add to the status of the training colleges to link them up with the universities for examination purposes, and that that should lead to a broadening of outlook and help to bring the training colleges into the main stream of university life, to the great benefit of the students. Yet, I trust, the training colleges will be able to continue giving students the value of their special experience and knowledge of the requirements of the teaching profession.
The next point is the somewhat surprising statement of the hon. Member for East Ham North that the retardation of 10 per cent. of the grant for higher education was an entirely new departure in financial policy. The hon. Member, I believe, is a member of the London Education Committee, and I think she will remember that, for some years past, it has been the practice of the Board to defer payment to local education authorities of 10 per cent. of the grant for elementary education, which is a considerably larger sum than the amount for higher education. This, therefore, marks no new departure in the financial policy of the Board, and it was a practice suggested to the Board by the County Councils Association some years ago. We had a hope expressed by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) that young people in the evening classes were not decreasing in numbers. I should like to re-assure him, though I do not see him in his place, that the steady increase in attendance in evening classes which has been going on since 1923 is believed to have been fully maintained in the last year and to be continuing in the present year.
As to technical instruction, about which various hon. Members have spoken, an unofficial inquiry on technical instruction is preparing the ground for what will possibly be a more extensive inquiry. My right hon. Friend fully realises the importance of technical instruction, but I think it is only fair, in view of what was said by one hon. Member, to state that a considerable advance has been made in mining
instruction in recent years, through the institutes which have been provided jointly by the Miners' Welfare Fund and the local authorities. Then the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. H. Guest) spoke at some length about different types of schools, and rather exaggerated, I think, the gap that there may be between what we know as public schools and schools provided under the national system. One thing I should like to say in answer to that is that every day we are trying more and more to introduce what is know as the public school spirit into the elementary schools. We realise the great value of the instruction in games in the public schools, and I think nothing is more characteristic of education to-day than the desire of every person interested in elementary schools to see the children enjoy more opportunities for playing organised games and for learning all that there is to be learned from them.

Mr. H. GUEST: Might I tell the Noble Lady that there is not a great opportunity for games in Southwark; there is only one acre there for organised games.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very sorry to hear that, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, many efforts are going forward to secure more playing fields, and there is generally a greater desire to facilitate these matters in schools in many places. Then there has been a steady increase in secondary school places and of free places. The expenditure allowed for under this year's Estimates, on Higher Education is greater than in any year since the War. It has actually exceeded that of the peak year, 1921–22, and we are therefore making a steady advance. I should like to remind the hon. Member for North Southwark in regard to what he said about scholarships from the elementary schools, that one great public school, Harrow, has a system of scholarships for young people coming out of the elementary schools, and personally I should be very glad to see that system further extended, because I quite agree that it is very desirable that the boys and girls, in the elementary schools, as in other schools, should have the opportunity of benefiting by such a system. The cleavage between the different classes of schools is steadily lessening, while on the other hand that cleavage can be exaggerated.

Mr. H. GUEST: Can the Noble Lady say bow many have gone to Harrow under that system?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am afraid I cannot give the numbers. It is gratifying to note the progress that has been made in adult education. It must be difficult in small houses to keep up the continuous study that is necessary to meet the work of the adult classes, but it is interesting to know that there has been in this matter also an advance, and that advance has been particularly marked in the case of the three-year tutorial classes.
The arrangements for co-operative inspection under the Central Welsh Board, I may tell the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), have been approved by the Board, the Central Welsh Board, and the great majority of Welsh local education authorities, and I know no reason why the new arrangement should not be put into operation from the beginning of next school session. Financial arrangements have been suggested which the Board have said they would be willing to submit to the Treasury if generally agreed in Wales. These have been agreed to by the Central Welsh Board and three-quarters of the local education authorities. The agreement, though very general, is not complete, and my Noble Friend has learnt to approach the Welsh dragon with some caution. In view, however, of the safeguards contained in the scheme we hope that we may be able to proceed with it with the good will of all concerned.
I think I have answered all the specific points that have been raised in the course of this afternoon's Debate. I would only say in reply to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said about the pledges of our party at the Election that we do not forget those pledges. We quite admit having given a considerable number of pledges, but I think our first year's record, though attained under very severe financial limitations, especially in the last eight months, is sound, and though the fulfilment of pledges has proceeded more slowly than we hoped and intended, we have no reason to be ashamed. If hon. Members will look at the Estimates they will see that the capital Expenditure approved by the Board last year is higher in the case of
elementary, secondary, and technical schools, and medical services than in any year since the War. Therefore I do not see how it is possible to say that the Board is standing still. I should like to point oat that this question of better school buildings is really fundamental to any advance. It lies at the root of everything. There has been, as I say a steady advance in special services. Since the 1st July, 1925, the Board have sanctioned proposals and certified new schools which will result in 3,800 more special school places, and we have some 2,000 more places than we had a year ago. It is impossible to ignore the state of trade, but we must get the best possible value by organisation as well as by quality of teaching. If in time of great financial difficulty—and times are certainly not easier to-day than they were nine months ago—we are able not only to hold our ground but make an appreciable and steady advance in essentials we shall be laying our foundations. We may hope before long to see a far better structure erected, and an all-round advance resumed.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I am sorry that circumstances over which I had no control prevented me from hearing the speech of the Noble Lord, but I am glad to have heard the Noble Lady. I do take some hope from what she has said, but apparently the action of the Board in determining whether we can go forward with education depends upon the wealth or the poverty of the particular area affected. In the county which I have the honour to represent we have done our best to impart education all round and to do it in such a way as not to make it too great a financial burden. We are very anxious that

schools should be built so as to house the children and to allow us to have classes of not more than 40 where the pupils are over 12 years of age and not more than 50 when they are under 12. Unfortunately, our assessable value is very low and we cannot be allowed to go forward. We, in the county of Durham, have an assessable value of £26 per child, whereas in the North Riding the assessable value is something like £42; yet we are expected to do as much with our money as the North Riding does. It cannot be done. [Interruption.] I am sorry for this interruption by my hon. Friends, but this is a subject which interests me and in which I have been interested all my life, and I wish to see our county in a better position. We have done the best we can, and we ought to be encouraged instead of thwarted.

As an instance of this, I may say, what is no secret to the Noble Lord, that in one case we are using what was originally erected as a granary as a school. Many of the shifts to which we have had to resort are a disgrace, and I would plead with the Noble Lord to be a little more sympathetic than he has been in the past towards this great county. I realise, however, that he is not to blame. Another Minister has stepped in. Both the Noble Lord and the Noble Lady are prepared to go on with education, but if the Minister of Health who, after all, holds the purse, refuses to give us money in our present necessity, our education must be spoiled. I do not want the sins of the fathers to be visited on the children, and I want him to give the children an opportunity.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,299,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 221.

Division No. 384.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Ammon, Charles George
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Greenall, T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cove, W. G.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Ahertillery)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barr, J.
Crawford, H. E.
Grundy, T. W.


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhouehton)
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dennison, R.
Hardie, George D.


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dunnico, H.
Hayday, Arthur


Buchanan, G.
Gibbins, Joseph
Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Gillett, George M.
Hirst, G. H.


Cape, Thomas
Gosling, Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Townend, A. E.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Jones, T. I Mardy (Pontypridd)
Purcell, A. A.
Viant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wellhead, Richard C.


Kennedy, T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lawrence, Susan
Scrymgeour, E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfertmilne)


Lawson, John James
Scurr, John
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lee, F.
Sexton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Lindley, F. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Westwood, J.


Lowth, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Whiteley, W.


Lunn, William
Smillie, Robert
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Snell, Harry
Wright, W.


Montague, Frederick
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Morrison. R. C (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, Campbell



Naylor, T. E.
Sullivan, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R. A.
Hayes.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Atkinson, C.
Finburgh, S.
Macintyre, Ian


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McLeon, Major A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forrest, W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macquisten, F. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foxcroft, Captain C T
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.


Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Galbraith, J. F. W,
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bethel, A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gates, Percy
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Merriman, F. B.


Blundell, F. N.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Braithwaite, A. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brass, Captain W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hail, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berke, Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harland, A.
Penny, Frederick George


Burman, J. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Campbell, E. T.
Hawke, John Anthony
Pileher, G.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Preston, William


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Clayton, G. C.
Hilton, Cecil
Radford, E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Raine, W.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Ramsden, E.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cope, Major William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cooper, J. B.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)
Remer, J. R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N.,
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jacob, A. E.
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset. Yeovil)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Salmon. Major I.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandon, Lord


Dixey, A. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shaw, Capt. Waiter (Wills, Westb'y)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Little, Dr, E. Graham
Shepperson, E. W.


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Elveden, Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.




Smithers, Waldron
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Waddington, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Withers, John James


Storry-Deans, R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Womersley, W. J.


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Watts, Dr. T.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wells, S. R.
Wragg, Herbert


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple



Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thom, Lt.-Col. .J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major Sir


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Harry Barnston.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be Reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — MINERS' DEPENDANTS (RELIEF).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I desire to call the attention of the House to what I regard as a very serious state of affairs, arising out of a decision of the Bolton Board of Guardians in reference to the relief of the dependants of miners connected with the mining dispute. The other day I put a question to the Minister of Health in the following terms:
To ask the Minister of Health whether he has now made inquiries into the decision of the Bolton Board of Guardians declining to continue to relieve distress among miners' wives and dependants; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
The reply of the Minister was an astonishing one, and I must say that I have been very interested indeed to see the difference in attitude adopted by the Ministry of Health in relation to the several boards of guardians in this country—a subject upon which I will touch later on. The reply of the hon. Gentleman who answered for the Minister was:
My right hon. Friend finds that the Bolton Board of Guardians have decided that the relief required by the wives and dependants of miners shall only be given in institutions. A number of orders for admission to institutions have been issued, but these have not been acted upon. My right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action in the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1926; Vol. 198, col. 1026.]
I would like the House to follow me for a moment or two into the actual terms of the decision of the Bolton Board of Guardians. I might here be allowed to explain that I am interested in this subject, because nearly half of the population in my constituency comes within the area of this board of guardians. On the 7th July the Bolton Guardians passed the following resolution:
That the report of the clerk as to the cost of outdoor relief to dependants of coal-miners be received, showing that £5,731 10s. 2d. had been expended on this account since the commencement of the strike"—
By the way, it is not a strike at all—
the amount distributed during the week ending the 6th July being £1,256 17s. 5d.
I want to say, in passing, that I fail to understand the attitude of this board when, in fact, the total amount paid away in, approximately, nine weeks of the mining dispute is only £5,731. The second resolution, however, is more astonishing than the first. It is:
That the clerk be authorised to arrange for food tickets to be issued to the dependants of coalminers for one week, such ticket only to be given in necessitous cases with a view of preventing hardship, and on the understanding that all out-relief for strikers' dependants will then cease.
I regard that as a very important decision; and if this decision be allowed to go unchallenged, the administration of the Poor Law in this country will be brought, into contempt, and deservedly so.
There are about 10,000 miners resident in the Bolton Poor Law area, and I understand that about 3,000 of them have applied for relief in respect of their wives and dependants. Since the decision was taken the situation has been clarified to this extent, that the Bolton Board of Guardians have taken the unusual step of singling out the dependants of miners for this treatment. This is the first occasion on which they have adopted the attitude of singling out any particular section or the community.
As hon. Members opposite and hon. Members behind me know, there have been many disputes in the Lancashire cotton industry and the engineering industry, too, but so far as my information goes this is the first time the Bolton Guardians have issued such an edict, based in my view upon malice and spite, against the miners in the surrounding areas of Bolton. A board of guardians, so far as I understand the matter, has a statutory duty to relieve destitution; but in effect the decision of the Bolton Board is, "We will relieve destitution and distress in respect of all other classes of the community, but in respect of miners' wives and children we will single them out, and the only relief they will get is inside the workhouse." Surely that takes us back at a stroke to the old idea of poor relief appertaining 50 years ago, and I protest against this reactionary attitude of guardians.
The clerk of the Bolton Board is well known to the Ministry of Health; he has done one or two doubtful jobs for the Ministry of Health before. He went down to Poplar on behalf of the Tory Government some time ago, and what does he say on the subject? If I am not mistaken the clerk has had a great deal to do with this decision at Bolton, and I would like hon. Members to follow his argument, which is a very strange and subtle one. He says that "The guardians in Bolton have not refused to give relief to miners' families; they have only refused to grant out-door relief; and destitute applicants for relief will be provided with food and shelter in the guardians' institutions." Previous experience has shown that although many people would apply for out-door relief, few would take advantage of the offer to go into Poor Law institutions, and out of 40 applicants who were given tickets of admission to Fishpool, not one had actually entered. What does that mean? It means that when the Bolton Board of Guardians decided that they would only deal with these cases inside their institutions, they knew full well that they were relieving themselves of any payment whatsoever. Their intention, their deliberate intention, was to get out of their responsibility to relieve distress amongst these people at all.
I am not going into the merits of the West Ham case; but if I understand
the law in that connection it is, that a board of guardians must grant relief. I am not going to dispute the legal title of this Board to do what they are doing, but whilst administering the law they are taking up a very mean attitude, and what I complain of is that if it was right for the Minister of Health to intervene in the West Ham case because it was alleged they were too generous, surely on the same principle it is only fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman to intervene here when a board of guardians is acting too mean. The right hon. Gentleman ought to treat all these boards alike. I hope I am not mistaken in reading the law, but I think it is quite competent for even the Bolton Board of Guardians to grant out-door relief up to the amount of £3 per family if they like. There is nothing in law to prevent them from granting that large amount; but I venture to say that, if the Bolton Board of Guardians granted relief up to the amount of £3, the Minister of Health would at once deprive them of their powers because they would be too generous. I repeat, therefore, that, if it is right and proper for the Minister of Health to take their functions from the West Ham Board of Guardians because it is alleged that they have overstepped the mark in their generosity, then the powers of the Bolton Board of Guardians ought to be taken away too, because they have overstepped the mark in their meanness.
I am afraid of this decision, because what does it mean? If we have an industrial dispute at any time in future, what is going to happen? I venture to say that, if there were a dispute in the textile trade in Bolton, the guardians would not do this, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman the reason why. Bolton town depends almost entirely on textiles and engineering; but the miners within the Union all reside on the outskirts of Bolton town. That is the difference, and I want to say that what is good enough for the textile operatives in Bolton, as regards treatment by the board of guardians, is good enough for the coalminer and his family.
I want to challenge the decision of this board of guardians, in view of Circular No. 703. The Minister of Health, when.
he issued that Circular, must have apprehended what was going to happen. He says, in Circular No. 703:
In cases where, under the Merthyr Tydfil judgment, relief may not lawfully be given to a man"—
I am not questioning the decision of the guardians on that score—
it may be found necessary to increase the allowance to the women and children above the figures of unemployment benefit, but it is thought that such allowances should not exceed the sum of 12s. and 4s. respectively for the woman and child.
If the Minister of Health, in his reply to me, was right in saying that he supports the Bolton Board of Guardians in declining to give outdoor relief in these cases, then this Circular cannot be right. Both cannot be right. The Circular, if it does anything at all, gives directions to the boards of guardians of this country to do what they ought to do in cases similar to the one which I am raising to-night.
I do not want to take up more of the time of the House, but I should like to put one question to the hon. Gentleman. What will the Bolton Board of Guardians do if the people in the Westhoughton and surrounding districts, as they might do, march in their thousands to the institution? The clerk to the board of guardians has a very subtle reply to that question. This is what he says:
If we cannot house them, we will send them to the institutions of neighbouring unions.
Surely that cannot be a proper thing to do. Let me repeat my question. Supposing 2,000 or 3,000 miners and their wives and children come down to the office of the Bolton Board of Guardians next Saturday, and ask for admission, can the hon. Gentleman who supports the guardians in this connection guarantee that there will be room for them, and, if there be no room for them in Bolton institutions, where are they to go?
I would put to the hon. Gentleman another question. The law has laid it down, so I understand, that a board of guardians according to the Merthyr Tydfil judgment, is not entitled to relieve an able-bodied man. I understand, on the other hand, that the Poor Law makes it clear that, in taking a family from their
home into an institution, you cannot divide the family; you must take the whole of them. What happens, then, when you have an application from a miner, his wife and three or four children? The policy of the Bolton Board of Guardians would mean that you take the wife and children into the institution, but, under the Merthyr Tydfil judgment, they are not entitled to take the father or husband. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman what he has to say to a proposal of that kind. The Bolton Board of Guardians cannot complain that they are in financial difficulties. They have not borrowed a penny piece, and they need not borrow a penny piece for this purpose. Bolton is regarded as one of the richest industrial towns in the country. Their finances in connection with poor relief have not been affected by the mining dispute at all. I protest against the action of this board of guardians, and I trust the hon. Gentleman will do one thing above all, and that in his attitude towards the guardians who it is alleged are too generous he will hold the scales even as between them and those who are too mean and teach all boards of guardians alike to do their duty when relief is required.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: My hon. Friend has spoken for Bolton, and I presume for other parts of England. I should like to say a word about Scotland. I believe there are some little differences in the law regarding relief as between Scotland and England, but I think the last Circular that was issued put us almost on an equality. What we have been troubled with for some considerable time past is that the parish councils are lowering the amount allowed to the women and children of the miners. I have had occasion more than once to wait on parish councils and try to get them to be a little more generous in their treatment, not always with success. In several instances the allowance to women was as low as 6s. It is much worse now because I received a telegram yesterday that in Ayr the parish councils absolutely refuse to give anything at all. They have given notice that the whole thing is to be withdrawn and that the women and children are not to have any more relief. I am afraid there is something in what my hon. Friend says regarding the class of people who are being refused relief. I should
hate to be right in this because I do not think the men who are at the head of our affairs ought to differentiate as between miners and any others of our industrial population, but it would seem that as this is the first time it has been done, and because a great many people are getting very uneasy rgarding the amount of rates they may have to pay later on, interdicts have been handed in against relief being given. I was very glad to see that, although the issue is still to be tried, the interdict was not granted, and the children and women, in the meantime at least, are benefiting by that. I know the Secretary for Scotland could not be here to-night. I am not charging him with anything at all. I believe he and the Under-Secretary for Health would be anxious to assist us as far as they can.
This action has been taken by this parish, at least, and I believe that it has been also taken in the Parish of Dailly during last week, and both are in my constituency. What we are afraid of is, that if this is not stopped at once it is bound to spread to other parishes. That we believe to be the intention. We do not think that there would have been anything done in these parishes, because there is no particular reason why it should be done in these parishes any more than any other parish, were it not that we fear this is beginning of a general onslaught on the miners' wives and children. The Solicitor-General for Scotland is present, and I hope that he will take the humane view and carry it to the Secretary for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland, and that he and they will do everything they can to induce these parishes to resume payment to our women and children, so that, as one very high in the land has said, this miners' fight will not be decided on the starvation of our women and children. I wanted to identify Scotland with this protest against the effort which is being made against our people, an effort which has not been used in regard to any other industrial workers in any other industrial dispute which has taken place in the country.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This afternoon, by Private Notice, I raised the question of the action of the Lichfield Board of Guardians. It will be within the recollection of some hon. Members that last
week I drew attention to the action which the Lichfield Board of Guardians proposed to take. On the 9th July, the Lichfield Board of Guardians decided that they would in the following week reduce the out-relief scale in respect of miners' wives and families to one-half, that in the following week, which is the present week, they would reduce it by one-half of what it was last week, and that next week they would cease to give out-relief. I referred to the improper speeches made by members of the board of guardians, dealing with the merits of the dispute, and the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, was good enough to read to the House a letter which his right hon. Friend had addressed to the Lichfield Board of Guardians on this question. In the course of the letter the following statement was made:
It appears to the Minister that the maintenance of a general resolution such as is reported is incompatible with an intention on the part of the guardians to discharge the functions of their office, which exists for the necessary relief of destitution.
This afternoon, having heard in the course of the day the subsequent developments in Lichfield, I asked the Minister of Health whether he had had any reply to his letter to the Lichfield Board of Guardians, whether he was aware that, notwithstanding his letter, the board were persisting in their determination to reduce the scale of outdoor relief, progressively, until it was wiped out, whether he was aware that the board is meeting to-morrow morning to take a final decision on this very important matter, and what steps he proposed to take. I gathered from the reply that he has had an answer, that he is aware that the guardians are persisting in pursuing this policy of starvation, that he knows that the guardians are meeting tomorrow to take the definite decision as from Monday next to pay no outdoor relief whatever to miners' wives and families, and the action he proposes to take is to wait until he gets a letter after to-morrow's meeting. I cannot think the Minister of Health realises the seriousness of the situation in Lichfield.
Lichfield is one of the black spots in this country. It pays a scale of relief which is a scandal to any board of guardians, and one on which no family can provide itself with the barest necessities for human existence. Before
the reduction took place the scale was as follows—I am not raising the question of the strikers at all—a woman without children, 5s.; for a wife with one child, 7s. 6d., two children, 10s., three children 12s. 6d., four children 14s. 6d., and the maximum amount payable, irrespective of the size of the family, was 16s. 6d. per week. That means that last week the maximum out-relief given by this board of guardians was 8s. 6d., and there are cases of families being asked to exist on much smaller sums than that. But the relief given last week has this week been reduced to half. I have here cases in which families have been given 5s. and 6s. a week. Here is the case of a man who was receiving nothing himself because he is a miner, with a wife and two children, one of them an infant eight months old, nursed by its mother, who had had no food at all for three days and fainted in the presence of a lady I know; and all that that family had last week was 5s. from this board of guardians.
I suggest that this board is not carrying out its statutory duty. It has no business to starve nursing mothers so that they faint and lose consciousness for want of food. There is another case of a man and his wife with four children, one mentally defective, another a cripple, and two children of school age, who last week received 7s. 6d. Another miner through sheer desperation made efforts to obtain agricultural work, but without success. His wife made application for relief. The family consisted of two boys who worked in the pit, and these two boys and the father received nothing whatever from the board of guardians. There were five children at school, and another child below school age, and all that that family received last week was 8s. 6d. It is true that something is being done by means of school meals, but if the family is a large one they get meals only on alternate days, not regularly each day. The day on which relief is normally paid is Monday, and last Sunday there were scores of households in that area without any food, and there are scores of families who are now living on dry bread and tea because the miserable pittance allowed by this board of guardians is inadequate to provide anything else. This scale of relief is not the scale which is being applied to all applicants. It is
only the scale that is being applied to the non-combatants in this industrial dispute.

Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: Where are the trade union funds to help the miners?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member ought to know that those funds are practically exhausted, and where they are being paid it is only on a low scale. I do not believe there is a miners' lodge in the country that has paid out more than 5s. a week for weeks. Even then in the case of single young men the rate would be halved. Some of the lodges have distributed nothing. Many boards of guardians have taken into account even what is received from the trade unions and have deducted the sum from the amount paid in relief. I do not think that the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) realises how much it costs to keep a million miners when there is an industrial dispute. This decision of the Lichfield Guardians applies only to miners' wives and their families, and if it be right to pay 16s. 6d. as a maximum to the families of those who are engaged in an industrial dispute, it is clearly utterly inadequate to pay miners' families a half and then a quarter of that very small sum. The Minister of Health, in his letter to the Lichfield Guardians, has admitted that the action which they have taken is incompatible with the exercise of their functions. The guardians have a statutory duty to perform, and that duty is to relieve destitution. They may do so by means of out-door relief or by means of indoor relief, but nothing that they can do can absolve them from their responsibility.
It is a monstrous thing that within a day of a final decision being taken by a board of guardians to throw over all its statutory duties and deliberately to starve the miners' families in that area, the Minister of Health should be waiting for a letter after to-morrow's meeting of the Board. It is very difficult to confine oneself to Parliamentary language on an issue of this kind. This is a board of guardians with a majority of farmers, who in their speeches at the board meetings have declared their intention of starving the miners into submission. The board is a statutory body with statutory duties to perform, and it ought to be suspended if it will not carry out its duties. The words which were used in
the Board of Guardians (Default) Bill were that if a board of guardians were in default or likely to be in default it could be suspended. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health believes that that means financial default. Financial default seems to me to be a small misdemeanour compared with a default of this kind, which means that the board of guardians are not doing that which they were elected to do. The case against the West Ham Board of Guardians was that it was doing its duty too well. If the Minister of Health thinks it is his duty, in the public interest, to supersede a board of guardians which is too generous or, as he says, too extravagant, it is clearly his duty to take some disciplinary action with regard to a board like that at Lichfield.
I hope that to-night we shall have from the Parliamentary Secretary a more specific statement as to the intentions of the Minister in this matter. I have no intention of allowing this question to rest. If this board is going to defy the law and the Minister, it will be our duty to keep the agitation going. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that he has a grave responsibility in this matter. I hope the resources of his Department are not exhausted, and that he will find some way of coercing this reactionary, this inhuman, this unfeeling board of guardians into doing its mere duty by large numbers of miners' wives and children who have no lot nor part in this dispute and who are entitled to be relieved from their sad necessity by the board of guardians. I hope we will hear to-night that the Minister intends to take steps either to supersede this body or compel it to carry out the law of the land.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I only intervene to show that the instances which have been cited to-night from Bolton, Lichfield and Scotland can be repeated all over the country in every mining area, and this goes to show that the policy of the Ministry and the Government is to use ruthlessly the whole of the administrative machinery in order to crush the miners. In the case of Bolton, with only 10,000 miners out of a huge population, the niggardly relief afforded is a scandal, and I hope the miners and the workers generally in that area will see to it that
this matter is put right. The Ministry are not playing the game with the Poor Law authorities who are seeking to carry out Circular 703 and to obey the law to the best of their ability with the funds at their disposal. We have been told repeatedly by the Ministry that there is a general relief arrangement in the mining areas for the payment of 10s. to the wife of a miner and 2s. for a child. I have found that this is not true. We are being deliberately misled by the Ministry in this matter. I have here the scales of relief given in every Poor Law union in the County of Durham, and, out of 14 unions, only two are paying the rate of 10s. In every other case the rate is 12s. and 4s. for a child, while in some cases it is even higher. In South Wales there are several unions paying similar rates, but some of them have been forced down to the 10s, by the Ministry, in contradiction of the suggestion of Circular 703 that they ought to aim at the 12s. and 4s. scale. The reason why this is being done is that a number of these unions were necessitous union areas before the stoppage occurred.
Durham and South Wales are in a very similar position. They are the two export coalfields of this country, and they have been going through a similar experience for four years past. In 12 out of the 14 unions in Durham the Ministry have not interfered, and have not sought to bring pressure on the unions to reduce the relief below 12s. I hope they will not do so, and that if the attempt is made the unions will fight against it. In the Union of Pontypridd, the second largest in the country, represented by five Members of Parliament, the Ministry have been putting on the screw. Sanction has been given to loans amounting to £230,000, all of which has been spent on this relief. The union, to meet their expenses, now require £63,000, and have no money in sight. They have approached the Ministry for loans or for assistance to get it from the bank, but have had no such assistance up to now.
It is very unfair of the Ministry to take sides as they are doing, with the coal-owners against the miners, because that, in simple English, is their policy. It is a deliberate Government policy to use all the means in their power to force the miners into need and induce them to
settle on any terms that will cause a resumption of work. I assure the House that policy will not make the miners give in but will make them still more determined to fight to the bitter end. The attitude which is being taken throughout the country is a serious reflection on the so-called impartiality of the Government in this dispute, and I know of no case in the history of disputes in the coal industry where any Government has so openly and unashamedly used its powers in that direction. If the Government are going to continue this and is going to prevent guardians getting those loans to meet this necessitous relief for the wives and children of the miners, then they are going to bring about a civil revolution in this country before this year is out.

Mr. ROY WILSON: I will only detain the House for a few minutes, but as Member for the Lichfield Division of Staffordshire I should like to say a few words on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood). As to the action of the Lichfield Board of Guardians, I want to make my position perfectly clear. It is this. If the board of guardians have broken the law in the attitude they have adopted of refusing relief, I sincerely trust that the Minister of Health will bring them to book. Some of my supporters are on the Lichfield Board of Guardians, but I conceive it to be my duty to make my position perfectly clear on this subject. I should regret, as much as any Member in this House, if the miners in England, and particularly the miners in my part of the country, were brought to end this dispute by a policy of starvation. I am not afraid to say that I have said it inside and outside this House. I wish to assure hon. Members opposite that there is nobody in this House more sincerely concerned about the welfare of the miners in the Lichfield Division than their member.
So far as this scale of relief is concerned, which I do not in any way defend, I would like to tell the House, in defence of my own people in Lichfield, what I endeavoured to get the people in the division to do from the very moment the general strike started. I made an appeal to all my supporters to get committees together in all the mining dis-
tricts—not party committees, but committees consisting of Labour men, Conservatives, Liberals, or whatever they might be—with the one object of endeavouring to feed the children and give them a decent meal every day to ensure, at any rate, that they would not suffer. I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that that is being done in the Lichfield Division. I cannot speak for the whole of the Cannock area. Everybody, so far as I am aware, in this district, is contributing money, goods and articles of food. In our small way, all of us connected with that division, even though some of us cannot afford it, are doing what we can to keep the children from starvation and suffering. I do not claim any credit for anything my people are doing except to say that I think it is common humanity to see that the miners do not starve, and that their children do not starve, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will be able to tell this House that if the Lichfield Board of Guardians are wrong in their action he will see to it that they are put right.

Mr. GREENALL: The Division I have the honour to represent is in the Bolton area. The position there created by the decision of the guardians is causing consternation throughout the whole district, including the Division which the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) represents. I was rather surprised to hear what he said with regard to the trade union funds. If he has been taking an interest in the miners who live in his Division he would know that for some two or three years past most of those miners have only worked two or three days a week. There have been two collieries closed in that district, and the trade union to which they belong have been compelled to exempt them during all this time from paying contributions because of the small amount of wages which they have been earning there. If the hon. Member will only reflect upon the situation of those in his own Division and consider his own attitude with regard to money matters, I think he will regret having said what he has said to-night. This House ought to remember that the miners are locked out, that this is not the same position as that in which many workpeople have been in the past in the Bolton Union,
when they have been on strike. The miners are prevented from going down into the pits to earn their living because the pits are closed against them, and that is a situation which ought to commend itself not only to this House, but to the public at large. Indeed, I think the community at large are showing that they realise the position by the way in which they are acting.
Further, the miners and the other workers in that Division are realising that they are the people who very largely provide this Poor Law relief. The miners have been providing, through the rates which they have paid, an insurance fund, as they look upon it, to make provision for the time when they might be in poverty and distress, and they hold that at a time like this they are, therefore, entitled to some relief. Hon. Members opposite and members of the Government not very long ago were telling the country at large, and, indeed, the whole world, that we did not need any Russian "Red gold" in this country to provide food for those who required it in connection with this lock-out, but that there was machinery provided by Acts of Parliament to secure that no one in Great Britain, and least of all women and children, should go short of food. They gave the whole country to understand that they would see to it that those women and children were provided for. What a different attitude they are now taking up. Whether or not it is the fact that the Government are really taking up this attitude with a view to taking sides with the coalowners to defeat the miners by the starvation of their wives and children, the country at large are coming to the conclusion that that is what they are doing.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. F. C. Thomson.]

Mr. GREENALL: I do not want to get in the way of the Adjournment, but I hope
in the administration of this the Government will really look into the question from the real standpoint, and that is that in the dispute between the owners and the workers generally the women and children who are suffering are not to blame in any way whatever. I hope at least they will see to it that the guardians of the district administer the law in the way they ought to do.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayr (Mr. Brown), regret the unavoidable absence of the Secretary for Scotland—

Mr. F. C. THOMSON (Lord of the Treasury): No notice whatever was given to the Secretary of State for Scotland that this question was going to be raised.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am not complaining particularly, but I endeavoured to get word to the Secretary for Scotland that my hon. Friend and myself were likely to raise certain aspects of this question. Perhaps in the absence of the Secretary for Scotland the hon. Gentleman opposite will give an answer. I shall not stand between the House and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for more than a few moments, but there is. an aspect of this question that we have been discussing for the last hour in respect to Scotland to which I should like to call the attention of the Government. Up to the present there have been three authorities who have been responsible for feeding, or providing the means for the feeding, of the wives and children of the miners. These are the education authorities, the local authority for child welfare, and the parish councils. The education authority has been responsible for the feeding of the children of school age. The local authorities have been responsible for those under five from infancy, and the parish councils—at least a certain number of them—have been providing for the wives of the idle miners. Our school holiday began a week or ten days ago. In some of our areas, particularly in the county of Clackmannan, the education authorities have intimated that they are not going to be responsible for the feeding of the school children during the holidays.
In the parish of Clackmannan, in the same county, the parish council has been doing nothing towards feeding the school children. One can imagine the dire
necessity that has arisen in that area. The school children were fed up to the time of the school holidays by the education authority, but now the parish council are doing nothing for them. In Circular 67, issued in 1924, the duty was laid upon education authorities and parish councils of acting conjointly in order to ensure that necessitous children were provided for. I hope the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson) will draw the attention of the Scottish Office to what has happened in this area. We have had difficulties in many areas, but this particular difficulty has only recently arisen, and I hope the Scottish Office will see to it that if the education authorities do not do their duty the parish council will do it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): In the few moments that are left to me I would like to make one or two observations on some of the criticisms passed on the Government in this Debate before dealing with the specific cases which two hon. Members have brought to the special attention of the House. Various boards of guardians have been accused of what is called "taking sides" in the present coal dispute, and it is only right that I should inform the House of the exact directions which the Minister of Health has given to the guardians of the country, so far as that aspect of the matter is concerned. In the Circular which has been the subject of so much criticism hon. Members will find that the Minister told the guardians of the country that this was their duty:
The function of the Guardians is to relieve destitution within the limits prescribed by law, and they are in no way concerned with the merits of an industrial dispute, even though it results in applications for relief. They cannot, therefore, properly give any weight to their views in dealing with applications made.
That is a very specific direction that, so far as they may have views one way or the other regarding the merits of this dispute, those views are not to enter into their discharge of their functions as laid down by law.
Another criticism, made in severe and somewhat extreme language by two hon. Members opposite, concerns the attitude of the Government generally in relation to
the feeding of the wives and dependants of the miners. Statements have been made that attempts are being made, in one direction or another, to crush the miners, that guardians are not playing the game, that they have taken the side of the coalowners, that the Government are engaged in a policy of starvation, and things of that sort. Hon. Members who have made these observations cannot realise the extent of the relief which is at present being given by the various boards of guardians of the country. I find—this is very material, having regard to the charges which have been made—that on the last date for which figures were available a week or two ago, no fewer than 2,315,400 were in receipt of relief in this country, representing an increase of 1,193,000 on the figure for the 1st May. So far from having no consideration for the distress which undoubtedly exists in certain quarters, since 1st May overdrafts have been sanctioned for no less an amount than £4,270,000, in view of the additional cost forced on boards of guardians by the general strike and the stoppage in the coal trade. If we compare these figures with the position in 1921 when there was a similar dispute we find that the amount of the overdraft then was £880,000 and the number of persons relieved increased during the period of the last strike by 643,000 only, and I do not think anyone can say, having regard to those facts that either the Government or the guardians are unmindful of the obligations on them at the present time. When I tell the House that in one union at the present moment there is actually more than one in every two of the population in receipt of relief and that there are several unions in which the number is more than two in every five—

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman give the name of the place?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think it is desirable. Whatever the name of the union, I think it shows—

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it competent for a member of the Government to make a statement in this House and not give the full details, which this House has the right to have?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman likes to put a question to me on the matter, I may be able to give him the, information. All that I am now doing is to give a general indication to the House, having regard to the statements which have been made, as to what is in fact being done at the present time, in view of the very grave position in which undoubtedly the boards of guardians find themselves at the present time. Then I want to deal with one further general charge which has been made in the course of the Debate, and particularly by the hon. Gentleman who was my predecessor in the office I now hold. He gave a number of instances of people whom he says are suffering destitution and hardship, and I hope he will forward them either to the board of guardians or to my Department so that they can be checked and verified because they do not at all agree with the reports we are receiving at the Ministry of Health from our inspectors, who have been asked particularly to report to us whether there are any cases of hardship or difficulty at the moment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman challenge the figures I gave?

Sir K. WOOD: If I may respectfully say so, we do not want to get into a discussion whether one rate of relief is good or not. The question I am answering is, whatever the rate of relief may be, is there any hardship or suffering at the present time? [HON. MEMBERS "Yes!"] Hon. Members say "Yes." Then, perhaps, they will allow me to make a reply. The information that we have at the Ministry of Health is exactly the opposite. I will take reports which we have received from two areas to which reference has been made. We have heard about the Bolton Guardians this evening. Reports from Bolton show that children are now better in the matter of food than they were before the strike. This curious contrast is traced to the fact that numerous private persons have come forward with supplies without acquainting the guardians of the fact and the guardians are relieving the families simultaneously.

Mr. DAVIES: Surely you will see the point I am trying to raise. I am speaking of cases outside the town in purely mining areas.

Sir K. WOOD: This report I have from the inspectors covers the whole of the areas, and is not limited to the town of Bolton alone.
I have one or two extracts from the reports furnished in June and July. On the 19th June it was reported:
There is nothing to show that the present scales of relief are in any way inadequate or that there is any distress whatever even amongst the single men.
On the 28th June, it is reported:
Not the slightest evidence has come to my notice that the children are suffering in any way.
On the 5th and 12th July, there was substantially no change in the situation and no reason to suppose that the children were suffering in any way. With regard to the three allegations generally made in the debate this evening. In the first place, there is the allegation of political bias on the part of my Department; that is absolutely unfounded. Secondly, with regard to the relief given, no one would have imagined such huge figures in the way of assistance which has been given at the present time. Thirdly, when we have regard to the reports from independent people who have no part or lot in the dispute at all, I venture to say that so far as these three charges are concerned, they are quite unfounded and have no regard to the facts of the case.
There are two cases which have been put by hon. Members opposite. The first is the case of Bolton, and there the issue is whether the Bolton Board of Guardians are acting within the law and within their discretion. Hon. Members will agree that, if the Bolton Guardians are acting within their discretion, it is no part or duty of my right hon. Friend to intervene in such a case. I want to state what I understand is the legal position so that hon. Members can consider it and challenge it on a later occasion. As I understand the matter, it is the duty of the board of guardians to relieve destitution. They are the judges whether destitution exists and in what form and to what extent relief should be granted.
So far as this statutory duty is concerned, in my opinion they have completely discharged it when they have met the physical needs of the applicant for relief, or placed in the hands of the applicant the means for meeting those
needs. The Bolton Board of Guardians decided that relief to miners' dependents should only be given in institutions, and I think—and I doubt whether any one will seriously challenge this—that when they place in the hands of the applicant complete means of meeting his physical needs, they have discharged their duties so far as the law is concerned. That is the exact position so far as this board is concerned.
I only want to make one further reference to this matter—an allusion to it. Allusion has been made to the clerk to the board of guardians. I am sorry that the hon. Member made that reference because, as he knows, the clerk to the board of guardians is a public officer and stands outside general criticism of this kind. I should like to tell the House—and I think it is fair to Mr. Cooper, the clerk to the guardians of this division, to do so—that we at the Ministry of Health regard him as a capable and efficient officer. He has certainly been called upon by my Department in days gone by to hold an inquiry, and I do not think the people who were themselves the subject of the inquiry questioned the conclusions to which he came. Therefore, I think the House will accept from me my belief, at any rate, that the clerk to this board of guardians has acted quite properly and without any desire to interfere in the merits of the present coal dispute.
I want to tell the House finally, so far as Bolton is concerned, that they need have no anxiety with reference to the children, because special notice has been taken of the children of Bolton. A special staff has been organised to watch the cases and keep in close touch with the education committee and the officers of another society. The education committee give a midday meal to school children, and, if necessary, breakfast also, and in future they will send lists of the children to the guardians. My right hon Friend does not consider that he has any right or duty to criticise or interfere with the discretion of the board of guardians in matters of this kind, and I think hon. Gentlemen, whether they agree with that view or not, will see the very dangerous realm which any Minister of the Crown would enter if he once
began to interfere with the discretion of boards of guardians in matters of this kind.
That brings me to the last case, namely, that of Lichfield. There there was a very different state of affairs. As was put before the House on the last occasion when we discussed it, the Lichfield Board of Guardians adopted, so far as we knew at the Ministry of Health, a resolution which was in no sense in our judgment a compliance with their duties so far as the relief of destitution was concerned, and my right hon. Friend took immediate steps to communicate with the board. So far from showing, as has been stated this afternoon, any bias on the side of the employers in this dispute, within a day of the statement appearing in the newspaper that this board of guardians had passed a resolution which seemed to indicate a view altogether outside the law, my right hon. Friend, as the House may remember, sent a communication to this board of guardians directing their attention to what he considered to be their duties and to be the law on the matter. The attitude my right hon. Friend has always adopted is simply that, so far as discretion is concerned, where the law gives a discretion to the board of guardians it is not right and it is not his duty to interfere with that discretion so long as they are complying with the law and relieving destitution. But where, on the one hand, you have a case like West Ham, or, on the other hand, a case like Lichfield, both at opposite ends, as it were, of the matter which we are discussing, then it is properly, as I think the House will agree, the duty of the Minister of Health to intervene and see that the law is complied with. He has done so, as I think fairly and justly, and in an endeavour to hold the balance even on both sides, and he took action, as far as West Ham is concerned, that necessitated coming to the House and obtaining an Act of Parliament. Secondly, so far as the Lichfield Guardians are concerned, he took action.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Has the action had any effect?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member has put before the House the position so far as the Lichfield Board of Guardians are concerned. On receipt of my right hon. Friend's letter, they passed a resolution deciding to deal with it to-morrow. As
a matter of fact, I think the date was chosen because to-morrow is the first day on which the resolution begins to operate. I do not think anyone would expect my right hon. Friend, having before him a resolution saying the board of guardians were going to consider the matter on the day on which their resolution becomes operative, should do something—I do not understand what it is suggested that he should do.
As has been expressed in this letter to the Lichfield Board of Guardians, my right hon. Friend considers that they must, the same as any other board of guardians, carry out their statutory functions and relieve destitution. They may decide to relieve destitution in the same way as the Bolton Guardians have done. That is a matter for their discretion, but in any event that is my right hon. Friend's view, and when he learns to-morrow the position which the board of guardians adopt, the House will agree that that is the proper time for him to come to a decision. Obviously, we have sufficient troubles and difficulties in the administration of poor relief in troublesome times like these without meeting troubles before they actually arise.

Major CRAWFURD: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House his opinion as to whether if the issue comes to this, of a board of guardians being in the position he has described, the Lichfield Board of Guardians would come within the pro-
visions of the Defaulting Guardians Act which has just been passed?

Sir K. WOOD: I am very reluctant to give an opinion on that, because, being unskilled in the law and not wanting to answer a hypothetical question of this kind, I think it is far better, having regard to the difficulties of boards of guardians at this time, not to anticipate dfficulties. I hope and believe that this particular board of guardians will have regard to the duties devolving upon them and I hope the House will feel assured, from the statements I have made, that under very difficult circumstances my right hon. Friend is doing his best to see that the law is evenly and fairly administered, and that no deserving person goes without relief at this time.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the two periods prior to the stoppage in 1921 and the present stoppage are comparable? Is it not a fact that the people prior to the 1921 stoppage had enjoyed a long period following the War of comparative prosperity and that the period prior to the present stoppage has been one of low wages.

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter.

It being Half-past Eleven, of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.